This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (February 2021) |
Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (1966), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that civil commitment following a prison term does not run afoul of double jeopardy principles.[1]
| Baxstrom v. Herold | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 9, 1965 Decided February 23, 1966 | |
| Full case name | Baxstrom v. Herold, State Hospital Director |
| Citations | 383 U.S. 107 (more) 86 S. Ct. 760; 15 L. Ed. 2d 620; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2214 |
| Holding | |
| Civil commitment following a prison term does not constitute an unconstitutional double jeopardy. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Warren, joined by Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas |
| Concurrence | Black (in judgment) |
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
References
edit- ^ Bonnie, R.J. et al. Criminal Law, Second Edition. Foundation Press, NY: 2004, p. 664
External links
edit
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |