green
Positive treatment
2.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
STATE EX REL. JUV. DEPT. v. Nicholls
See generally United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248-49 , 100 S.Ct. 2636 , 65 L.Ed.2d 742 , reh'g den., 448 U.S. 916 , 101 S.Ct. 37 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1179 (1980) (discussing federal ex post facto analysis); State v. MacNab, 334 Or. 469, 481-83 , 51 P.3d 1249 (2002) (discussing state ex post facto analysis).
discussed
Cited "see"
State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. Nicholls
See generally United States v. Ward, 448 US 242, 248-49 , 100 S Ct 2636 , 65 L Ed 2d 742 , reh’g den, 448 US 916 , 101 S Ct 37 , 65 L Ed 2d 1179 (1980) (discussing federal ex post facto analysis); State v. MacNab, 334 Or 469, 481-83 , 51 P3d 1249 (2002) (discussing state ex post facto analysis).
discussed
Cited "see"
Myers v. Ridge
See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 293 , 97 S.Ct. 2290 , 53 L.Ed.2d 344 , (1977), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 916 , 101 S.Ct. 37 (1980), (“Even though it may work to the disadvantage of a defendant, a procedural change is not ex post facto.”); see also Weaver. a.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Howell
See Hudson v. U.S., ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 488 , 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997) (citing United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242 , 100 S.Ct. 2636 , 65 L.Ed.2d 742 (1980), rehearing denied 448 U.S. 916 , 101 S.Ct. 37 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1179 ; Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 , 83 S.Ct. 554 , 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963)).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jones
See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 , 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2416 , 65 L.Ed.2d 424 , reh’g denied, 448 U.S. 916 , 101 S.Ct. 36 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1179 (1980) (holding certain delegations to magistrate judges does not violate Article III where ultimate decision is made by district court), quoted in Johnson, 48 F.3d at 808 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Santopietro
See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 678 , 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2414 , 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (”[a]t a suppression hearing, the court may rely on hearsay and other evidence, even though that evidence would not be admissible at trial") (citations omitted), reh’g denied, 448 U.S. 916 , 101 S.Ct. 36 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1179 (1980); United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 177 , 94 S.Ct. 988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); United States v. Bradford, 496 F.Supp. 366 , 371 n. 27 (D.Conn.1980) (”[a]lthough it was hearsay, Special Agent Meyrick’s testimony ... was clearly admissible at the hearing on the motion to…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Omega Equipment Corp. v. John C. Louis Co. (In Re Omega Equipment Corp.)
See, e.g., United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 , 100 S.Ct. 2406 , 65 L.Ed.2d 424 , reh’g denied, 448 U.S. 916 , 101 S.Ct. 36 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1179 (1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Salob
v.
Ambach, Commissioner of Education of New York
v.
Ambach, Commissioner of Education of New York
No. A-1162 (79-1815).
Supreme Court of the United States.
Aug 22, 1980.
Published
Application for stay, addressed to Mr. Justice Brennan and referred to the Court, denied.