Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. District Courtgreen2 sentences1993We have stated that “the ex post facto clause is violated when a statute punishes as a crime conduct which was innocent when done, makes more onerous the punishment for a crime after its commission, or deprives a defendant of a defense that was available at the time the crime was committed.” People v. Aguayo, 840 P.2d 336, 338-39 (Colo.1992) (quoting People v. District Court (Thomas), 834 P.2d 181, 199 (Colo.1992)). 1992As in Thomas, we examine House Bill 1038 “under the standard that the ex post facto clause is violated when a statute punishes as a crime conduct which was innocent when done, makes more onerous the punishment for a crime after its commission, or deprives a defendant of a defense that was available at the time the crime was committed.” Thomas, 834 P.2d at 199 (plurality opinion of Rovira, C.J.) (footnote omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Wood v. Beatrice Foods Co.green2 sentences2002See Wood v. Beatrice Foods Co., 813 P.2d 821 (Colo.App.1991)(law will withstand an ex post facto challenge if the legislative intent is not to impose further punishment for past crimes, but instead is to regulate a present situation). 5. 1993See Billips, 652 P.2d at 1064 (the ex post facto inhibition is inapplicable unless the original punishment for the offense committed is increased in some manner); Weaver, 450 U.S. at 33 , 101 S.Ct. at 966 (criminal legislation must alter “quantum of punishment” attached to a crime already completed to offend the ex post facto clause); Wood v. Beatrice Foods Co., 813 P.2d 821 (Colo.App.1991) (where legislation does not show an intent to impose further punishment for past crimes, but is incident to the regulation of a present situation, the law is sufficient to uphold the statute against ex post | 2 | 3 |
People v. Billipsgreen2 sentences1993See Billips, 652 P.2d at 1064 (the ex post facto inhibition is inapplicable unless the original punishment for the offense committed is increased in some manner); Weaver, 450 U.S. at 33 , 101 S.Ct. at 966 (criminal legislation must alter “quantum of punishment” attached to a crime already completed to offend the ex post facto clause); Wood v. Beatrice Foods Co., 813 P.2d 821 (Colo.App.1991) (where legislation does not show an intent to impose further punishment for past crimes, but is incident to the regulation of a present situation, the law is sufficient to uphold the statute against ex post 1992In People v. Bil-lips, we considered an ex post facto challenge to a statute that classified felonies for the first time and made the penalty for escape dependent upon the classification of the felony for which a defendant was sentenced. 652 P.2d 1060 (Colo.1982).' Although we found no violation of either the Colorado or United States Constitution because no retrospective application was involved, we observed: A statute, however, is not rendered unconstitutional as an ex post facto law merely because it might operate on a fact or status preexisting the effective date of the legislation, as lon | 1 | 4 |
Gasper v. Guntergreen2 sentences1999Gasper v. Gunter, supra. Stated another way, as long as the statute’s punitive features apply only to acts committed after the statute’s effective date, it does not violate the ex post facto clause. 1999Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912 (Colo.1993). | 1 | 3 |
Weaver v. Grahamred2 sentences1993See Billips, 652 P.2d at 1064 (the ex post facto inhibition is inapplicable unless the original punishment for the offense committed is increased in some manner); Weaver, 450 U.S. at 33 , 101 S.Ct. at 966 (criminal legislation must alter “quantum of punishment” attached to a crime already completed to offend the ex post facto clause); Wood v. Beatrice Foods Co., 813 P.2d 821 (Colo.App.1991) (where legislation does not show an intent to impose further punishment for past crimes, but is incident to the regulation of a present situation, the law is sufficient to uphold the statute against ex post 1993See Billips, 652 P.2d at 1064 (the ex post facto inhibition is inapplicable unless the original punishment for the offense committed is increased in some manner); Weaver, 450 U.S. at 33 , 101 S.Ct. at 966 (criminal legislation must alter “quantum of punishment” attached to a crime already completed to offend the ex post facto clause); Wood v. Beatrice Foods Co., 813 P.2d 821 (Colo.App.1991) (where legislation does not show an intent to impose further punishment for past crimes, but is incident to the regulation of a present situation, the law is sufficient to uphold the statute against ex post | 1 | 2 |
Dobbert v. Floridagreen2 sentences1992The majority, however, disregards the gravamen of the ex post facto test announced in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 , 97 S.Ct. 2290 , 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977), which distinguishes substantive from procedural legislation. 1992The majority, however, disregards the gravamen of the ex post facto test announced in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 , 97 S.Ct. 2290 , 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977), which distinguishes substantive from procedural legislation. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Winston Eugene Mitchell, Sr.green1 sentence2011See, eg., United States v. Pfeifer, 371 F.3d 430, 436-37 (8th Cir.2004) (so long as the act of possessing a firearm is committed after enactment of a federal statute proscribing possession by a prior offender, there is no ex post facto violation); United States v. Hemmings, 258 F.3d 587, 594 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319, 822-23 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 290-91 (2d Cir.1994); State v. Swartz, 601 N.W.2d 348, 350-51 (Iowa 1999); State v. Peters, 261 Neb. 416 , 622 N.W.2d 918, 924-25 (2001) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to Nebraska's P | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard Alan Brady, Frank Pontillo, Also Known as Franky Steel, Robert Montano, Michael Dematteo and John Pategreen1 sentence2011See, eg., United States v. Pfeifer, 371 F.3d 430, 436-37 (8th Cir.2004) (so long as the act of possessing a firearm is committed after enactment of a federal statute proscribing possession by a prior offender, there is no ex post facto violation); United States v. Hemmings, 258 F.3d 587, 594 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319, 822-23 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 290-91 (2d Cir.1994); State v. Swartz, 601 N.W.2d 348, 350-51 (Iowa 1999); State v. Peters, 261 Neb. 416 , 622 N.W.2d 918, 924-25 (2001) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to Nebraska's P | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rodney E. Hemmingsgreen1 sentence2011See, eg., United States v. Pfeifer, 371 F.3d 430, 436-37 (8th Cir.2004) (so long as the act of possessing a firearm is committed after enactment of a federal statute proscribing possession by a prior offender, there is no ex post facto violation); United States v. Hemmings, 258 F.3d 587, 594 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319, 822-23 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 290-91 (2d Cir.1994); State v. Swartz, 601 N.W.2d 348, 350-51 (Iowa 1999); State v. Peters, 261 Neb. 416 , 622 N.W.2d 918, 924-25 (2001) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to Nebraska's P | 1 | 1 |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, — v. ROBERT LEE PFEIFER, ALSO KNOWN AS BARNEY PFEIFER, —green1 sentence2011See, eg., United States v. Pfeifer, 371 F.3d 430, 436-37 (8th Cir.2004) (so long as the act of possessing a firearm is committed after enactment of a federal statute proscribing possession by a prior offender, there is no ex post facto violation); United States v. Hemmings, 258 F.3d 587, 594 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319, 822-23 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 290-91 (2d Cir.1994); State v. Swartz, 601 N.W.2d 348, 350-51 (Iowa 1999); State v. Peters, 261 Neb. 416 , 622 N.W.2d 918, 924-25 (2001) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to Nebraska's P | 1 | 1 |
State v. Swartzgreen1 sentence2011See, eg., United States v. Pfeifer, 371 F.3d 430, 436-37 (8th Cir.2004) (so long as the act of possessing a firearm is committed after enactment of a federal statute proscribing possession by a prior offender, there is no ex post facto violation); United States v. Hemmings, 258 F.3d 587, 594 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319, 822-23 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 290-91 (2d Cir.1994); State v. Swartz, 601 N.W.2d 348, 350-51 (Iowa 1999); State v. Peters, 261 Neb. 416 , 622 N.W.2d 918, 924-25 (2001) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to Nebraska's P | 1 | 1 |
People v. Midgleygreen1 sentence2011See Midgley, 714 P.2d at 904 (extended limitations period applies to the charges which have not yet been time-barred on the effective date of the legislative extension). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bastiangreen1 sentence2011See Bas-tian, 981 P.2d at 206 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Diefenderfergreen1 sentence2011See People v. Hill, 228 P.3d 171, 176 (Colo.App.2009) (declining to address argument where the defendant failed to present any analysis or argument, other than the conclusory statement that his confrontation rights were violated); People v. Simpson, 93 P.3d 551, 555 (Colo.App.2003) (declining to consider "a bald legal proposition presented without argument or development"); see also People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741, 752 (Colo.1989) (counsel for appealing party's duty is to inform a reviewing court as to the specific errors relied on, as well as the grounds, supporting facts, and authoritie | 1 | 1 |
People v. Simpsongreen1 sentence2011See People v. Hill, 228 P.3d 171, 176 (Colo.App.2009) (declining to address argument where the defendant failed to present any analysis or argument, other than the conclusory statement that his confrontation rights were violated); People v. Simpson, 93 P.3d 551, 555 (Colo.App.2003) (declining to consider "a bald legal proposition presented without argument or development"); see also People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741, 752 (Colo.1989) (counsel for appealing party's duty is to inform a reviewing court as to the specific errors relied on, as well as the grounds, supporting facts, and authoritie | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen1 sentence2011See People v. Hill, 228 P.3d 171, 176 (Colo.App.2009) (declining to address argument where the defendant failed to present any analysis or argument, other than the conclusory statement that his confrontation rights were violated); People v. Simpson, 93 P.3d 551, 555 (Colo.App.2003) (declining to consider "a bald legal proposition presented without argument or development"); see also People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741, 752 (Colo.1989) (counsel for appealing party's duty is to inform a reviewing court as to the specific errors relied on, as well as the grounds, supporting facts, and authoritie | 1 | 1 |
Jamison v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2011See Jamison, 988 P.2d at 180 (law will withstand an ex post facto challenge if the legislative intent is not to impose further punishment for past crimes, but instead is incident to a present situation's regulation}. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petersgreen2 sentences2011See, eg., United States v. Pfeifer, 371 F.3d 430, 436-37 (8th Cir.2004) (so long as the act of possessing a firearm is committed after enactment of a federal statute proscribing possession by a prior offender, there is no ex post facto violation); United States v. Hemmings, 258 F.3d 587, 594 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319, 822-23 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 290-91 (2d Cir.1994); State v. Swartz, 601 N.W.2d 348, 350-51 (Iowa 1999); State v. Peters, 261 Neb. 416 , 622 N.W.2d 918, 924-25 (2001) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to Nebraska's P 2011See, eg., United States v. Pfeifer, 371 F.3d 430, 436-37 (8th Cir.2004) (so long as the act of possessing a firearm is committed after enactment of a federal statute proscribing possession by a prior offender, there is no ex post facto violation); United States v. Hemmings, 258 F.3d 587, 594 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319, 822-23 (4th Cir.2000); United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282, 290-91 (2d Cir.1994); State v. Swartz, 601 N.W.2d 348, 350-51 (Iowa 1999); State v. Peters, 261 Neb. 416 , 622 N.W.2d 918, 924-25 (2001) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to Nebraska's P | 1 | 1 |
Kolkman v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2003Kolkman v. People, 89 Colo. 8, 31-32 , 300 P. 575, 584 (1931). 2003Kolkman v. People, 89 Colo. 8, 31-32 , 300 P. 575, 584 (1931). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Woodwardgreen1 sentence2000See Woodward, 989 P.2d at 191 . | 1 | 1 |
| Zaragoza v. Director of the Department of Revenuegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Aguayogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. D.K.B.green | 1 | 1 |
| Petition of Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Savagegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mallen v. Vidalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Peoples Natural Gas Division of Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| French v. Deanegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re RBgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Denver, South Park & Pacific Railway Co. v. Woodwardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ficarra v. Department of Regulatory Agencies, Division of Insurance
green
1 sentence2025But a statute violates the ex post facto clause in this regard only if it “attaches a new disability[] in respect to transactions or considerations already past.” Ficarra, 849 P.2d 6 We recognize that the change in law affected Soltani’s plan or expectation to retire after a certain period of time, but again, an expectation is not a vested right. 15 at 15 (quoting P–W Invs., 655 P.2d at 1371 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
P-W Investments, Inc. v. City of Westminster
green
1 sentence2025But a statute violates the ex post facto clause in this regard only if it “attaches a new disability[] in respect to transactions or considerations already past.” Ficarra, 849 P.2d 6 We recognize that the change in law affected Soltani’s plan or expectation to retire after a certain period of time, but again, an expectation is not a vested right. 15 at 15 (quoting P–W Invs., 655 P.2d at 1371 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Woodward
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 1092 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Bowring
green
1 sentence2000People v. Bowring, 902 P.2d 911 (Colo.App.1995). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Furnari v. Zavaras
green
2 sentences1999And, the decision in Furnari v. Zavaras, 914 P.2d 508 (Colo.App.1996), which rejected a substantially similar challenge to the identical statute, is dispositive of petitioner’s argument based on the ex post facto clause of the Colorado Constitution. 1999And, the decision in Furnari v. Zavaras, 914 P.2d 508 (Colo.App.1996), which rejected a substantially similar challenge to the identical statute, is dispositive of petitioner’s argument based on the ex post facto clause of the Colorado Constitution. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
California Department of Corrections v. Morales
green
2 sentences1999The decision in California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 115 S.Ct. 1597 , 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995), rejecting a substantially similar challenge to a substantially similar statute, is dispositive of petitioner’s argument based on the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. 1999The decision in California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 115 S.Ct. 1597 , 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995), rejecting a substantially similar challenge to a substantially similar statute, is dispositive of petitioner’s argument based on the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Clinton Manges David Wayne Myers and Carl Hubert Shanklin
green
1 sentence1998United States v. Manges, 110 F.3d 1162 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1675 , 140 L.Ed.2d 813 (1998); United States v. Harris, 79 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 851 , 117 S.Ct. 142 , 136 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); United States v. Smith, 46 F.3d 1223 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 864 , 116 S.Ct. 176 , 133 L.Ed.2d 116 (1995); United States v. Cseplo, supra; United States v. Kienenberger, 13 F.3d 1354 (9th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Douglas Dale Kienenberger, United States of America v. Douglas Dale Kienenberger
green
1 sentence1998United States v. Manges, 110 F.3d 1162 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1675 , 140 L.Ed.2d 813 (1998); United States v. Harris, 79 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 851 , 117 S.Ct. 142 , 136 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); United States v. Smith, 46 F.3d 1223 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 864 , 116 S.Ct. 176 , 133 L.Ed.2d 116 (1995); United States v. Cseplo, supra; United States v. Kienenberger, 13 F.3d 1354 (9th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Robert E. Cseplo
green
1 sentence1998United States v. Manges, 110 F.3d 1162 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1675 , 140 L.Ed.2d 813 (1998); United States v. Harris, 79 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 851 , 117 S.Ct. 142 , 136 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); United States v. Smith, 46 F.3d 1223 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 864 , 116 S.Ct. 176 , 133 L.Ed.2d 116 (1995); United States v. Cseplo, supra; United States v. Kienenberger, 13 F.3d 1354 (9th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Roy William Harris, Also Known as "Will Harris,"
green
1 sentence1998United States v. Manges, 110 F.3d 1162 (5th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1675 , 140 L.Ed.2d 813 (1998); United States v. Harris, 79 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 851 , 117 S.Ct. 142 , 136 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); United States v. Smith, 46 F.3d 1223 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 864 , 116 S.Ct. 176 , 133 L.Ed.2d 116 (1995); United States v. Cseplo, supra; United States v. Kienenberger, 13 F.3d 1354 (9th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Harris v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| United States v. Smith green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Manges v. United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People v. Thomas green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Calder v. Bull green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Collins v. Youngblood green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Kring v. Missouri red | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Medley green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Duncan v. Missouri green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Thompson v. Utah red | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Young red | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Lindsey v. Washington green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| James v. United States green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. O'NEILL green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Aue v. Diesslin green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Garvey v. People green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| In re Tyson neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Tenneson green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. District Court green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Benney green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Bouie v. City of Columbia green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.