State v. Sosa

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the ―test emphasizes the elements of the two crimes,‖ and that ―[i]f each requires proof that the other does not,‖ the Double Jeopardy Clause is ―satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes‖ (citations omitted)
• holding that the “test emphasizes the elements of the two crimes,” and that “[i]f each requires proof that the other does not,” the Double Jeopardy Clause is “satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes” (citations omitted)
• holding that the ―test emphasizes the elements of the two crimes,‖ and that ―[i]f each requires proof that the other does not,‖ the Double Jeopardy Clause is ―satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes‖ (citations omitted)
• \To hold otherwise would frustrate sound public policy and circumvent the demands of justice.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Met
  Utah Supreme Court· 2016-11-21· cited 42×
• State v. Franklin
  Utah Supreme Court· 1987-03-19· cited 29×
• State v. Sisneros
  Utah Supreme Court· 2022-02-10· cited 3×
• State v. Sommerville
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 2010-11-26

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Blockburger v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1931-12-11· cited 10,676×
• Brown v. Ohio
  Supreme Court· 1977-06-16· cited 3,552×
• Hakki v. Faux
  Utah Supreme Court· 1964-12-01· cited 5×
• State v. Cooley
  Utah Supreme Court· 1978-02-06· cited 4×
• Pons v. Faux
  Utah Supreme Court· 1964-11-13· cited 4×
• State v. Harris
  Utah Supreme Court· 1974-01-07· cited 3×