United States v. Bizzell’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 263 · 1990
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Brown v. Ohio · Abney v. United States · United States v. Halper · United States Marcus v. Hess
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the clear intent of debarment to purge government programs of corrupt influences and to prevent improper dissipation of public funds. Removal of persons whose participation in those programs is detrimental to public purposes is remedial by definition.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to the extent that the second sanction may not fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as a deterrent or retribution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We commence our analysis with a brief visit to the Double Jeopardy Clause itself. Although defendants would like us to blur distinctions, there are three prongs to the Double Jeopardy Clause: "The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against the second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.' Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225 , 53 L.Ed. 2d 187 (1977) (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 656 (1969)). The Bizzells argue vociferously that the administrative complaint constituted a `prosecution' for double jeopardy analysis, but we are not persuaded. Jeopardy attaches only in a criminal proceeding, United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 548-49 , 63 S.Ct. 379, 386-87 , 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943); Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 397-98 , 58 S.Ct. 630, 632-33 , 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938); when the jury is impanelled and sworn, or in a bench trial when the court begins to hear evidence. Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 388 , 95 S.Ct. 1055, 1062 , 43 L.Ed. 2d 265 (1975). Since none of these events occurred prior to the return of the indictment in this case, we are not concerned with the first two prongs of the Double Jeopardy Clause because defendants are not threatened with a second prosecution for the same offense. The only question raised by defendan”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.