TWO KINDS OF COINCIDENCE: WHY COURTS DISTINGUISH DEPENDENT FROM INDEPENDENT INTERVENING CAUSES.

Eric A. Johnson

TWO KINDS OF COINCIDENCE: WHY COURTS DISTINGUISH DEPENDENT FROM INDEPENDENT INTERVENING CAUSES.

College of Law

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Abstract

The article discusses the distinction between dependent and independent intervening causes, and its use by the courts in the U.S. It examines temporal concurrence of the wrongdoer's conduct; and U.S. Supreme Court case Utah v. Strieff in which the court declined to suppress evidence that the police had obtained as the result of an unlawful investigatory stop.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	77-101
Number of pages	25
Journal	George Mason Law Review
Volume	25
Issue number	1
State	Published - Sep 1 2017

Keywords

UNITED States. Supreme Court
INTERVENING cause (Law)
COURTS -- United States
EVIDENCE (Law)
CRIMINAL investigation

Access to Document

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2957771

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'TWO KINDS OF COINCIDENCE: WHY COURTS DISTINGUISH DEPENDENT FROM INDEPENDENT INTERVENING CAUSES.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Johnson, E. A. (2017). TWO KINDS OF COINCIDENCE: WHY COURTS DISTINGUISH DEPENDENT FROM INDEPENDENT INTERVENING CAUSES. George Mason Law Review, 25(1), 77-101. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2957771

@article{b28abc2e7632486ebcc7ba9a6ec36e67,

title = "TWO KINDS OF COINCIDENCE: WHY COURTS DISTINGUISH DEPENDENT FROM INDEPENDENT INTERVENING CAUSES.",

abstract = "The article discusses the distinction between dependent and independent intervening causes, and its use by the courts in the U.S. It examines temporal concurrence of the wrongdoer's conduct; and U.S. Supreme Court case Utah v. Strieff in which the court declined to suppress evidence that the police had obtained as the result of an unlawful investigatory stop.",

keywords = "UNITED States. Supreme Court, INTERVENING cause (Law), COURTS -- United States, EVIDENCE (Law), CRIMINAL investigation",

author = "Johnson, {Eric A.}",

year = "2017",

month = sep,

day = "1",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "25",

pages = "77--101",

journal = "George Mason Law Review",

issn = "1088-5625",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - TWO KINDS OF COINCIDENCE

T2 - WHY COURTS DISTINGUISH DEPENDENT FROM INDEPENDENT INTERVENING CAUSES.

AU - Johnson, Eric A.

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - The article discusses the distinction between dependent and independent intervening causes, and its use by the courts in the U.S. It examines temporal concurrence of the wrongdoer's conduct; and U.S. Supreme Court case Utah v. Strieff in which the court declined to suppress evidence that the police had obtained as the result of an unlawful investigatory stop.

AB - The article discusses the distinction between dependent and independent intervening causes, and its use by the courts in the U.S. It examines temporal concurrence of the wrongdoer's conduct; and U.S. Supreme Court case Utah v. Strieff in which the court declined to suppress evidence that the police had obtained as the result of an unlawful investigatory stop.

KW - UNITED States. Supreme Court

KW - INTERVENING cause (Law)

KW - COURTS -- United States

KW - EVIDENCE (Law)

KW - CRIMINAL investigation

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 77

EP - 101

JO - George Mason Law Review

JF - George Mason Law Review

SN - 1088-5625

IS - 1

ER -