CURTIS

v.

ILLINOIS

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

• Davis v. State, 459 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
  …ndant’s favor in the initial trial by a valid and final judgment. While collateral estoppel is “a protection embodied in the fifth amendment guarantee against double jeopardy,” United States v. Henry, 661 F. 2d 894, 897 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992, 102 S.Ct. 1619, 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982), the concepts are distinct in that “the traditional bar of double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of the crime itself, whereas collateral estoppel, in a more modest fashion, simply forbids the government fro…
• Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1987)
  …t had misconstrued the terms of the plea agreement. The District Court dismissed his petition, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, Adamson v. Hill, 667 F. 2d 1030 (1981), and we denied respondent’s petition for a writ of certiorari. 455 U. S. 992 (1982). Respondent was then convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal, State v. Adamson, 136 Ariz. 250, 665 P. 2d 972, and we denied certiorari. 464 U. S. 865 (1983). Respondent sought fed…
• United States v. Mulherin, 710 F.2d 731 (11th Cir. 1983)
  …enson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). In a criminal case it is “a protection embodied in the fifth amendment guarantee against double jeopardy.” U.S. v. Henry, 661 F. 2d 894, 897 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit B), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992, 102 S.Ct. 1619, 71 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982). The concept is distinct from double jeopardy in the sense that: [T]he traditional bar of double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of the crime itself, whereas collateral estoppel, in a more modest fashion, s…