Document Type
Article
Media Type
Text
Abstract
This note examines the United States Supreme Court decision holding the imposition of a state drug tax unconstitutional in that it violates the multiple punishment component of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The author contends that the majority's application of Double Jeopardy jurisprudence was not only faulty and erroneous, but inconsistent in light of the Court's prior holdings. The court fashioned a test which allows for a much lower level of judicial deference to the legislature, and in so doing, continued on a recent trend, albeit an erroneous one, that is expanding the scope of Double Jeopardy protection.
First Page
433
Last Page
476
Publication Date
5-1-1995
Department
College of Law
ISSN
0734-1490
Language
eng
Publisher
Northern Illinois University Law Review
Recommended Citation
Gravel, Denis M.
(1995)
"Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch: Double Jeopardy. A: Multiple Punishment Component. Q: What is Confusion? Continuing Where Halper and Austin Left Off,"
Northern Illinois University Law Review: Vol. 15:
Iss.
2, Article 2.
Suggested Citation
Denis M. Gravel, Note, Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch: Double Jeopardy. A: Multiple Punishment Component. Q: What is Confusion? Continuing Where Halper and Austin Left Off, 15 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 433 (1995).
