BROWN

v.

OHIO

Citator

Cited By

• Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (U.S. 1977)
  …both prosecutions are based on the same act or transaction, the second prosecution is not barred by the double jeopardy clause.” Ibid. The Ohio Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. We granted certiorari to consider Brown's double jeopardy claim, 429 U. S. 893 (1976), and we now reverse. II The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth, provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” It has…
• Cont'l T. V., Inc. v. Gte Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1977)
  …for its [*42] position in the policies of the Sherman Act and in the decisions of other federal courts involving nonprice vertical restrictions.10 We granted Continental's petition for certiorari to resolve this important question of antitrust law. 429 U. S. 893 (1976).11 II A We turn first to Continental’s contention that Sylvania’s restriction on retail locations is a per se violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act as interpreted in Schwinn. The restrictions at issue in Schwinn were part of a three-tier dis…
• Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (U.S. 1977)
  …e-judge court was then convened, and that court granted appellee declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of § 22 on the ground that it violated appellee’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We noted probable jurisdiction, 429 U. S. 893 (1976). We affirm. (2) We begin with the proposition that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination protects grand [*805] jury witnesses from being forced to give testimony which may later be used to convict them in a crim…