99 Cited authorities

United States v. Dixon
509 U.S. 688 (1993) Cited 1,998 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the same-elements test inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the same offense and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution
United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (1974) Cited 4,087 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding appeal of District Court's denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254
Brown v. Ohio
432 U.S. 161 (1977) Cited 3,088 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that double jeopardy bars successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses
Hamling v. United States
418 U.S. 87 (1974) Cited 3,343 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that statutory language in an indictment “must be accompanied with ... the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offence” and “enable him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of prosecution for the same offense”
Missouri v. Hunter
459 U.S. 359 (1983) Cited 2,259 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that cumulative punishment does not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause if the legislature specifically authorized it
United States v. Calandra
414 U.S. 338 (1974) Cited 3,161 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the exclusionary rule provides that "evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure"
Albernaz et al. v. United States
450 U.S. 333 (1981) Cited 1,370 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule of lenity is inapplicable where the "statutory provisions . . . are unambiguous on their face and legislative history . . . gives us no reason to pause over the manner in which these provisions should be interpreted"
Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States
406 U.S. 128 (1972) Cited 1,627 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation
Blockburger v. United States
284 U.S. 299 (1932) Cited 9,744 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that the test for whether two offenses are distinct for double jeopardy purposes is "whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not"
Securities v. Zandford
535 U.S. 813 (2002) Cited 520 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the SEC may bring a public enforcement action against a broker who accepted payment for securities that he never delivered
Section 78j - Manipulative and deceptive devices
15 U.S.C. § 78j Cited 12,502 times 165 Legal Analyses
Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities
Section 3282 - Offenses not capital
18 U.S.C. § 3282 Cited 1,833 times 27 Legal Analyses
Providing general 5–year statute of limitations
Section 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 Cited 9,196 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any person who "make any untrue statement of material fact"

USA v. Treacy

99 Cited authorities

Holding that the same-elements test inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the same offense and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution

Holding appeal of District Court's denial of motion to quash subpoena duces tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254

Holding that double jeopardy bars successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses

Holding that statutory language in an indictment “must be accompanied with ... the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offence” and “enable him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of prosecution for the same offense”

Holding that cumulative punishment does not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause if the legislature specifically authorized it

Holding that the exclusionary rule provides that "evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure"

Holding that the rule of lenity is inapplicable where the "statutory provisions . . . are unambiguous on their face and legislative history . . . gives us no reason to pause over the manner in which these provisions should be interpreted"

Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation

Holding that the test for whether two offenses are distinct for double jeopardy purposes is "whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not"

Holding that the SEC may bring a public enforcement action against a broker who accepted payment for securities that he never delivered

Granting SEC power to establish rules to further statute forbidding manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with purchase or sale of securities

Providing general 5–year statute of limitations

Holding liable any person who "make any untrue statement of material fact"