green
Positive treatment
18.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1951 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1951
1988
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Marshall
(2×)
Va. Sept. 29, 2016)] (citing Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528 (1975); Lucero v. Gunter, 17 F.3d 1347, 1350 (10th Cir. 1994); Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327, 327-28 (4th Cir. 1950)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrison v. Ms. Avent
See, e.g., Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528 (1975); Lucero v. Gunter, 17 F.3d 1347, 1350 (10th Cir. 1994); Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327, 327-28 (4th Cir. 1950).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Torres v. Ishee
See, e.g., United States v. Moss, 445 F. App’x 632 (4th Cir. 2011) (disciplinary charges in prison do not preclude criminal punishment for the same conduct); Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327, 328 (4th Cir.1950) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Johnson
Federal Courts: United States v. Hernandez-Fundora, 58 F.3d 802, 807 (2nd Cir. 1995); Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327,328 (4th Cir.1950);Mullican v. United States, 252 F.2d 398, 400 (5th Cir. 1958); United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10thCir.1989), and United States v. Boomer, 571 F.2d 543, 546 (10th Cir. 1978); Dayutis v. Powell, unpublished, 1994 WL 258785 , *6 (D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Frederick Green
Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327, 328 (4th Cir.1950); see also United States v. Simpson, 546 F.3d 394, 398 (6th Cir.2008) (collecting cases and holding: “The Double Jeopardy Clause was not intended to inhibit prison discipline, and disciplinary changes in prison conditions do not preclude subsequent criminal punishment for the same misconduct.”); United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102 , 103-04 (9th Cir.1995) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Juan Garcia
Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327, 328 (4th Cir.1950); see United States v. Simpson, 546 F.3d 394, 398 (6th Cir.2008) (en banc) (collecting cases and holding that "[tithe Double Jeopardy Clause was not intended to inhibit prison discipline, and disciplinary changes in prison conditions do not preclude subsequent criminal punishment for the same misconduct"); United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 103-04 (9th Cir.1995) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ezzat
The Fourth Circuit has held that “Congress intended [prison] disciplinary proceedings to be civil in nature.” United States v. Devaughn, 32 Fed.Appx. 60, 61 (4th Cir.2002) (reaffirming the vitality of Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327, 328 (4th Cir.1950) (“Criminal prosecution for the crime of escape is not prohibited under the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment because a convict guilty thereof has upon his recapture been subjected to discipline by the prison authorities for the violation of prison discipline involved.”)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mott v. State
The seminal case on the issue is Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327, 328 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 893 , 71 S.Ct. 200 , 95 L.Ed. 647 (1950).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Williams
R. 2d 1217; Patterson v. United States, 183 F. 2d 327, 328 [4th Cir. 1950], cert. den. 340 U. S. 893 , 71 S. Ct. 200 , 95 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Rick Allen Apker
United States v. Shapiro, 383 F.2d 680, 683 (7th Cir.1967); Rush v. United States, 290 F.2d 709, 710 (5th Cir.1961); Mullican v. United States, 252 F.2d 398, 400 , 70 A.L.R.2d 1217 (5th Cir.1958); Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327, 328 (4th Cir.1950); Pagliaro v. Cox, 143 F.2d 900, 901 (8th Cir.1944).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ford v. State
The federal cases decided on the Fifth Amendment are in accord: Patterson v. United States, 183 F. 2d 327, 328 (4th Cir., 1950), cert. den. 340 U. S. 893 (1950); Mullican v. United States, 252 F. 2d 398, 400 (5th Cir., 1958).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Gonyer
In Patterson v. United States, 183 F. 2d 327, 328 (4th Cir. 1950) the appellants, after conviction for escape, moved that the judgment bo set aside on the ground that they had already been punished for the escape in that after their return to the federal reformatory they had been placed in solitary confinement for a certain period.
cited
Cited "see"
Wild v. Commonwealth
See Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 893 (1950).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kelvin Moss
See, e.g., Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327, 328 (4th Cir.1950) *635 (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Blick
See also Patterson v. United States, 183 F.2d 327 (4th Cir.1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 893 , 71 S.Ct. 200 , 95 L.Ed. 647 (1951) (criminal prosecution for the crime of escape is not prohibited under the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment because a convict guilty thereof has upon his recapture been subjected to discipline by the prison authorities for the violation of prison discipline involved); United States v. Hedges, 458 F.2d 188 (10th Cir.1972) (administrative punishment does not render a subsequent judicial prosecution violative of the fifth amendment prohibition of double jeo…
Patterson
v.
United States; Kimball v. United States
v.
United States; Kimball v. United States
6116_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jul 6, 1950.
W. R. Allcott, of Richmond, Va., for appellants., George R. Humrickhouse, U. S. Atty., and Robert N. Pollard, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Richmond, Va., for appellee.
Parker, So-Per, Dobie.
Cited by 30 opinions | Published
The appellants Patterson and Kimball were convicted in the court below of the crime of escaping from The Federal Reformatory at Petersburg, Virginia, in which they were confined. After conviction and sentence they moved that the judgment of the court be set aside and that they be granted a new trial on the ground that they had already been punished for the escape in that after their return to the reformatory they had been placed in soli[*328] iary confinement for a certain period and the “good time” which they had earned had been revoked. Aside from the fact that the granting of a new trial was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court which may not be disturbed in the absence of abuse, it is perfectly clear that the motions here were absolutely lacking in merit. Criminal prosecution for the crime of escape is not prohibited under the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment because a convict guilty thereof has upon his recapture been subjected to discipline by the prison authorities for the violation of prison discipline involved. Pagliaro v. Cox, Warden, 8 Cir., 143 F.2d 900.
Affirmed on both Appeals.