Charles Caston v. Discover Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a disjunctive charge is \wholly insufficient” and lacks \necessary certainty,” as it fails to provide \definite notice of the offence charged” and does not protect against \subsequent prosecution for one of the several offences”
• noting a disjunctive charge “would be destitute of the necessary certainty and would be wholly insufficient [because] [i]t would not give the accused definite notice of the offence charged” and would not provide protection against double jeopardy
• “[A]n indictment or a criminal information which charges the person accused, in the disjunctive, with being guilty of one or of another of several offences, would be destitute of the necessary certainty, and would be wholly insufficient”
• ”[A]n indictment or a criminal information which charges the person accused, in the disjunctive, with being guilty of one or of another of several offences, would be destitute of the necessary certainty, and would be wholly insufficient.”
• “[A]n indictment or a criminal information which charges the person accused, in the disjunctive, with being guilty of one or of another of several offences, would be destitute of the necessary certainty, and would be wholly insufficient.”
• “[A]n indictment or a criminal information which charges the person accused, in the disjunctive, with being guilty of one or of another of several offences, would be destitute of the necessary certainty, and would be wholly insufficient.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).