Legal Opinion
Hudson v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided December 10, 1997No. 96-976PublishedCited by 1,213 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist
The Government administratively imposed monetary penalties and occupational debarment on petitioners for violation of federal banking statutes, and later criminally indicted them for essentially the same conduct. We hold that the *96Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not a bar to the later criminal prosecution because the administrative proceedings were civil, not criminal. Our reasons for so holding in large part disavow the method of analysis used in United States v. Halper, 490 U. S. 435, 448 (1989), and reaffirm the previously established rule exemplified in United States v.…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- United States v. DixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,213 opinions
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, J., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- State v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 2015
1,208 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.