Cannabis Ruderalis

How this document has been cited

"Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a State or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns, and may be liable to punishment for an infraction of the laws of either. The same act may be an offence or transgression of the laws of both."
- in Bartkus v. Illinois, 1959 and 81 similar citations
Yet it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable. Id
- in State v. Mitchell, 1998 and 79 similar citations
There are cases (the most familiar of which are those of making and uttering counterfeit money) in which the same act may be a violation of the laws of the State, as well as of the laws of the United States, and be punishable by the judiciary of either.
- in In re Loney, 1890 and 33 similar citations
—explaining that "[t] he same act may be an offence" against both a state and the federal government and that double punishment for the act means "only that by one act [the offender] has committed two offences
- in US v. Williams, 2018 and 31 similar citations
We have long recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the imposition of all additional sanctions that could, " `in common parlance,'"be described as punishment.
- in State v. Converse, 2012 and 42 similar citations
The same act may be an offence or transgression of the laws of [Illinois and the United States].... That either or both may (if they see fit) punish such an offender, cannot be doubted
- in US v. Angleton, 2002 and 26 similar citations
—the Court considered the constitutionality of an Illinois statute criminalizing "harboring or secreting a negro slave."
- in US v. Angleton, 2002 and 16 similar citations
—it reaffirmed the states' police power to "make it a penal offence to introduce paupers, criminals, or fugitive slaves, within their borders. '374 The lower courts understood the Supreme Court as approving
The possibility that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment might apply to such cases was precluded by the early development of a double sovereignty theory
In particular, the Government directs attention to the dual sovereignty doctrine under which, "[w] hen a defendant in a single act violates the `peace and dignity'of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct `offences.'"
- in United States v. Dixon, 1993 and 16 similar citations

Cited by

Dist. Court, ND Alabama 2018
338 F. Supp. 3d 1267 - Dist. Court, ND Alabama 2018
545 F. 2d 1255 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1976
26 Ohio St. 2d 221 - Ohio: Supreme Court 1971
217 Pa. Superior Ct. 269 - Pa: Superior Court 1970
183 F. Supp. 2d 1106 - Dist. Court, ED Wisconsin 2002
36 F. Supp. 2d 908 - Dist. Court, D. Nebraska 1997
474 US 82 - Supreme Court 1985
641 F. 2d 96 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1981
374 A. 2d 365 - Md: Court of Special Appeals 1977

Leave a Reply