Legal Opinion
State v. Zimmerman
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided October 31, 1995No. Cr. 950163, 950164PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SANDSTROM, Justice.
Defendants Edwin Zimmerman and Albert Knutson appeal their criminal convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. Each contends his criminal prosecution constituted double jeopardy because his driver’s license previously had been suspended in an administrative proceeding relating to the same conduct.
That criminal prosecution and administrative driver’s license suspension do not constitute double jeopardy has been viewed as firmly established by State v. Sinner, 207 N.W.2d 495 (N.D.1973). Defendants argue the result in these cases now must be different because of…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Helvering v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth RanchSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Pennsylvania v. MunizSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Luk v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
- State v. BurrNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. McClendonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. McClendonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- McCoy v. North Dakota Department of TransportationNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.