Yeaton & Others, of the Schooner Gen. Pinkney & Cargo v. The United States, 5 Cranch 281 (1809). · Go Syfert
Search
Yeaton & Others, of the Schooner Gen. Pinkney & Cargo v. The United States, 5 Cranch 281 (1809). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 1990–2014 · 2 courts · …it has been long settled, on general principles, that after the expiration or repeal of a law, no penalty can be enforced, nor punishment inflicted, for violations of the law committed while it was in force, unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute. at p. 283 ✓
171 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 60 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Com. v. Childs, W. (pasuperct, 2014-11-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1901 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1901 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Com. v. Childs, W.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
it has been long settled, on general principles, that after the expiration or repeal of a law, no penalty can be enforced, nor punishment inflicted, for violations of the law committed while it was in force, unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Arshpreet Singh v. Tonya Andrews, et al.
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 9 U.S. 281, 288 (2018).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kastis v. Alvarado
E.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
Cal. May 22, 2008) (Recognizing that the Ninth Circuit has not 2 addressed the issue but concluding that “[w]ith respect to § 1983 liability on the part of law 3 enforcement officers for alleged Brady violations, it is well established that, in order to state a 4 claim, a wrongful conviction must have followed the alleged Brady violation.”). 5 The undersigned finds the rationale employed by these circuit and district courts to be 6 persuasive, particularly because it is in line with the Supreme Court’s reasoning that “there is 7 never a real ‘Brady violation’ unless the nondisclos…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Landgraf v. USI Film Products (2×)
SCOTUS · 1994 · confidence medium
Co., 3 How. 534, 552 (1845); Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch 281, 284 (1809).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (2×)
SCOTUS · 1990 · confidence medium
I limit the expression of the rule to nonpenal legislation because a contrary presumption (i. e., a presumption of retroactivity) is applied to the repeal of punishments. “[I]t has been long settled, on general principles, that after the expiration or repeal of a law, no penalty can be enforced, nor punishment inflicted, for violations of the law committed while it was in force, unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute.” Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch 281, 283 (1809).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rossi (2×)
Cal. · 1976 · confidence medium
Co., 3 How. 552 .)" (101 Cal. at pp. 305-306.) (See, e.g., Sekt v. Justice's Court, supra, 26 Cal.2d 297, 304-308 [ 159 P.2d 17 , 167 A.L.R. 833 ]; Yeaton v. United States (1809) 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 281, 283 [ 3 L.Ed. 101, 102 ]; United States v. Tynen, supra, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 88, 95 ; United States v. Chambers, supra, 291 U.S. 217, 222-223 [ 78 L.Ed. 763, 765-766 ]; Hamm v. Rock Hill, supra, 379 U.S. 306, 312-313 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 300, 305-306 ].) In light of these numerous authorities, it is clear that the People can gain no comfort from the fact that the intervening amendment of section 288a com…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John R. Franco v. United States (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1965 · confidence medium
This consequence is not altered by the fact that the crimes in question were alleged to have been committed while the National Prohibition Act was in effect. * * * In case a statute is repealed or rendered inoperative, no further proceedings can be had to enforce it in pending prosecutions unless competent authority has kept the statute alive for that purpose * * * In Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch 281, 283 [ 3 L.Ed. 101 ], * * * Chief Justice Marshall said that ‘it has long been settled, on general principles, that after the expiration or repeal of a law, no penalty can be enforced, nor …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hamm v. City of Rock Hill (2×)
SCOTUS · 1964 · confidence medium
In such a case the court must* decide according to existing laws, and if it be necessary to set aside a judgment, rightful when rendered, but which cannot be affirmed but in violation of law, the judgment must be set aside." Although the decision in that case arguably rested on the premise that appeals in admiralty were trials de novo, and that prize litigation applied the law of the time of trial, see Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch 281, 283 (1809); Maryland v. Baltimore & O.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Steamship Co. v. Joliffe
unknown court · 1865 · confidence medium
NOTES [*] Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 California 282; Maine on Ancient Law, 844. [†] Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia, 12 Howard, 312 . [*] 5 Metcalf, 406 [*] Subdivision 10. [†] Subdivision 15. [*] Abbott on Shipping, 195; Bouvier's Law Dictionary, term "Pilots." [*] Statutes of California, 1863-4, page 392. [†] 1 William Blackstone, 451; S.C. more at large in 3 Burrow, 1456. [‡] 9 Barnwall & Cresswell, 750. [§] 4 Moore & Payne, 341. [*] Butler v. Palmer, 1 Hill, N.Y. 324; Hartung v. The People, 22 New York, 95; Sanches v. The People, Id. 155; Commonwealth v. Duane…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Bonn Brown (2×)
4th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch 281 , 3 L.Ed. 101 (1809); United States v. Chambers, 291 U.S. 217, 223 , 54 S.Ct. 434 , 78 L.Ed. 763 (1934); Hamm v. Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306, 313 , 85 S.Ct. 384 , 13 L.Ed.2d 300 (1964); Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 237 , 84 S.Ct. 1814 , 12 L.Ed.2d 822 ; United States v. The Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110 , 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Systems, LP
11th Cir. · 2019 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Yeaton , 9 U.S. at 283 (forbidding post-repeal enforcement of pre-repeal liabilities "unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute"), with 1 U.S.C. § 109 (stating that repeal does not extinguish past liabilities "unless the repealing Act shall so expressly provide").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Vandyke, Roger Dale (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2017 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Bell v. Maryland , 378 U.S. 226 , 230, 84 S.Ct. 1814 , 12 L.Ed.2d 822 (1964) (noting that Maryland follows "the universal common-law rule" that requires a dismissal of all proceedings after a legislature repeals a criminal statute if the proceeding had not yet reached final disposition in the highest court authorized to review it). 9 U.S. 281 , 283, 5 Cranch 281 , 3 L.Ed. 101 (1809). 500 S.W.2d at 99 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Masciandaro
4th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
This provision reversed the common-law rule, under which the repeal of a criminal law “preclude[d] punishment for acts antedating the repeal.” Landgraf 511 U.S. at 271 , 114 S.Ct. 1483 ; see also Yeaton v. United States, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 281, 283 , 3 L.Ed. 101 (1809) (holding that when a criminal statute expires or is repealed, “no penalty can be enforced, nor punishment inflicted, for violations of the law committed while it was in force, unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Smith v. Petra Cablevision Corp.
E.D.N.Y · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch 281 , 3 L.Ed. 101 (1809); United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 95 , 20 L.Ed. 153 (1871).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Yeaton and Others, Claimants of the Schooner General Pinkney and Cargo,
v.
the United States
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 18, 1809.
5 Cranch 281
1809 U.S. LEXIS 431
Q. Lee, Martin, Harper and Youngs, for the appellants,, Rodney, Attorney-General,
Marshall.

March 7.

Marshall, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court io the following effect:

The majority of the court is clearly of Opinion, •that in admiralty cases an appeal suspends the tence altogether; and that it is not res adjudicuiá until the final sentence of the appellate court be pronounced. The cause in the appellate court is to be heard de novo, as if no sentence had been passed. ‘ This has been the uniform practice not only • in cases of appeal from the district to the circuit courts of the United States, but in this court also.

In prize causes, the principle has never been disputed; and in the instance court, it is stated in 2 Browne's Civil Law, that in cases of appeal it is -kaoful to allege zvhat has not before been alleged, and to prove what has not before been proved. *

The court is, therefore, of opinion, that this cause is to be considered as if no sentence had been pronounced ; and if no sentence had been pronounced, it has been long settled, on general principles, that after the expiration . or repeal of a law, no penalty can be enforced, nor punishment inflicted, for violations of the law committed-while it was in force, unless some special provision be made for that purpose by statute. †

[*284] The following sentence was then pronounced by the court:

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof the courtis of opinion, that an appeal from the sentence of a court of admiralty brings the whole case before the appellate? court unaffected by the sentence of condemnation from which the appeal is made, and that a sentence of condemnation cannot be pronounced on account of a forfeiture which accrued under a law not in force at the time of pronouncing such sentence, unless, by some statutory provision, the right to enforce such forfeiture be preserved.

The court is, therefore, of opinion, that the sentence pronounced in this cause by the circuit court of the district of Maryland, affirming the sentence of the judge of the district court in this cause, be reversed, and annulled; and the court, proceeding to pronounce the proper sentence, doth direct that th libel be dismissed, and the property libelled be restored to the' claimants, they paying the duties thereon if the same have not been already paid.

And, on the motion of the attorney-general, it is ordered to be certified that in the opinion of this court, there was probable cause of seizure.

*

Clerke’s Praxis, Hi, 54. “ Nam in appellatione a sententia definitiva licet non allegata allegare et non probala probare.”

†

The cases ot IVilmnt et ul claimants of the schooner Collector, ami ijcwis, claimant of the schooner Gottenburgh v. United States, were reversed opon The same principle.