Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 canonical passages across 12 cases, quoted by 3,083 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Blockburger v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blockburger v. United States Anchor | green | “where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” | 1,943 |
| 2 | Missouri v. Hunter | green | “with respect to cumulative sentences imposed in a single trial, the double jeopardy clause does no more than prevent the sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended.” | 361 |
| 3 | North Carolina v. Pearce | red | “protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” | 146 |
| 4 | Missouri v. Hunter | green | “a court's task of statutory construction is at an end and the prosecutor may seek and the trial court or jury may impose cumulative punishment under such statutes in a single trial.” | 105 |
| 5 | Brown v. Ohio | green | “where consecutive sentences are imposed at a single criminal trial, the role of the constitutional guarantee is limited to assuring that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.” | 90 |
| 6 | State v. Ruff | green | “when the defendant's conduct constitutes offenses involving separate victims or if the harm that results from each offense is separate and identifiable.” | 70 |
| 7 | Ohio v. Johnson | green | “the question under the double jeopardy clause whether punishments are 'multiple' is essentially one of legislative intent.” | 48 |
| 8 | Whalen v. United States | green | “the question whether punishments imposed by a court after a defendant's conviction upon criminal charges are unconstitutionally multiple cannot be resolved without determining what punishments the legislative branch has authorized.” | 43 |
| 9 | Whalen v. United States | green | “where two statutory provisions proscribe the 'same offense,' they are construed not to authorize cumulative punishments in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” | 39 |
| 10 | State v. Ruff | green | “under r.c. 2941.25(b), a defendant whose conduct supports multiple offenses may be convicted of all the offenses if any one of the following is true: (1) the conduct constitutes offenses of dissimilar import, (2) the conduct shows that the offenses were committed separately, or …” | 38 |
| 11 | State v. Martinez | green | “a verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the finder of fact chose to believe the state's witnesses rather than the defendant's version of the events.” | 37 |
| 12 | State v. Rogers | green | “an accused's failure to raise the issue of allied offenses of similar import in the trial court forfeits all but plain error, and a forfeited error is not reversible error unless it affected the outcome of the proceeding and reversal is necessary to correct a manifest miscarriag…” | 35 |
| 13 | Albernaz v. United States | green | “the blockburger test is a 'rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” | 34 |
| 14 | Whalen v. United States | green | “congress ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes.” | 28 |
| 15 | Albernaz v. United States | green | “a veritable sargasso sea which could not fail to challenge the most intrepid judicial navigator.” | 27 |
| 16 | Missouri v. Hunter | green | “simply because two criminal statutes may be construed to proscribe the same conduct under the blockburger test does not mean that the double jeopardy clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes.” | 25 |
| 17 | State v. Childs | green | “whether the general assembly intended to permit multiple punishments for the offenses at issue.” | 8 |
| 18 | State v. Pendleton (Slip Opinion) | green | “regarding multiple punishments for the same offense, the double jeopardy clause prohibits 'the sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.