Supreme Court· 6/16/1977

Brown v. Ohio

Citations

432 U.S. 161
97 S. Ct. 2221
53 L. Ed. 2d 187
1977 U.S. LEXIS 117

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

joyriding and auto theft are not separate offenses, where the lesser offense of joyriding requires no proof beyond what is required to prove auto theft
due process prohibits retroactive application of judicial expansion of laws when change in law is \unforeseeable\
“Where consecutive sentences are imposed at a single trial, the role of the constitutional guarantee is limited to assuring that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.”
comparing elements of auto theft and joyriding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Powusll, Stevens, Stewart, White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2,442 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Brown v. Ohio

18 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.