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.
15 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lynce v. Mathisgreen2 sentences2024Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 441 (1997); Rew, 845 N.W.2d at 789-90 . 2006“It is axiomatic that for a law to be ex post facto it must be more onerous than the prior law.” Dobbert, 432 U.S. at 294 , 97 S.Ct. 2290 ; see also Lynce, 519 U.S. at 441 , 117 S.Ct. 891 . | 2 | 2 |
Hankerson v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Hankerson v. State, 723 N.W.2d 232, 241-42 (Minn. 2006) (citing Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 292-94 (1977) (holding that changing the roles of judge and jury was procedural and, therefore, not an ex post facto violation)). 2016A law can work to a defendant’s disadvantage and thereby violate the ex post facto clause in four ways: “(1) by punishing as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; (2) by making more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission[;] (3) by depriving one charged with [a] crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed,” Hankerson, 723 N.W.2d at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted); and (4) by “changing] the rules of evidence [so that] less or different testimony is sufficient to convict than was then required,” su | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Elrodgreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Manninggreen2 sentences2024This court considered the same ex post facto challenge to the registration statute in State v. Manning, 532 N.W.2d 244 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 1995). 11 There, we determined that the statute is regulatory and not punitive because it serves the regulatory purpose of assisting police investigations. 2011See Manning, 532 N.W.2d at 247 (applying the Kennedy factors in an ex post facto challenge to a sex-offender-registration statute). | 1 | 2 |
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstromgreen2 sentences2024Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 441 (1997); Rew, 845 N.W.2d at 789-90 . 2016Raw v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764, 794 (Minn.2014) (quoting State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 370, 375-76 , 13 Gil. 343 , 348 (1868)). | 1 | 2 |
Dobbert v. Floridagreen2 sentences2024See Hankerson v. State, 723 N.W.2d 232, 241-42 (Minn. 2006) (citing Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 292-94 (1977) (holding that changing the roles of judge and jury was procedural and, therefore, not an ex post facto violation)). 2006“It is axiomatic that for a law to be ex post facto it must be more onerous than the prior law.” Dobbert, 432 U.S. at 294 , 97 S.Ct. 2290 ; see also Lynce, 519 U.S. at 441 , 117 S.Ct. 891 . | 1 | 2 |
Samuels v. McCurdygreen2 sentences1993See Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S. 188 , 45 S.Ct. 264 , 69 L.Ed. 568 (1925) (no ex post facto violation where defendant convicted for possessing liquor which he had obtained before and held continuously through enactment of prohibition law); State v. Willis, 332 N.W.2d 180 (Minn.1983) (use of prior convictions to increase punishment for offense committed after statutory effective date does not violate ex post facto clause); State v. Howard, 360 N.W.2d 637 (Minn.App.1985) (no ex post facto violation where defendant prosecuted for post-enactment conduct even though conduct began before enactment a 1993See Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S. 188 , 45 S.Ct. 264 , 69 L.Ed. 568 (1925) (no ex post facto violation where defendant convicted for possessing liquor which he had obtained before and held continuously through enactment of prohibition law); State v. Willis, 332 N.W.2d 180 (Minn.1983) (use of prior convictions to increase punishment for offense committed after statutory effective date does not violate ex post facto clause); State v. Howard, 360 N.W.2d 637 (Minn.App.1985) (no ex post facto violation where defendant prosecuted for post-enactment conduct even though conduct began before enactment a | 1 | 2 |
State v. Soukupgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Soukup, 746 N.W.2d 918, 923 (Minn. App. 2008) (stating that a law violates the ex post facto clause “by punishing as a crime an act previously committed, which was not a crime at the time”), rev. denied (Minn. June 18, 2008). 5 containers and also did not challenge the additional three search warrants, issued after the initial search warrant, allowing the search of the contents of his electronic devices. | 1 | 1 |
Carmell v. Texasgreen2 sentences2016A law can work to a defendant’s disadvantage and thereby violate the ex post facto clause in four ways: “(1) by punishing as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; (2) by making more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission[;] (3) by depriving one charged with [a] crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed,” Hankerson, 723 N.W.2d at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted); and (4) by “changing] the rules of evidence [so that] less or different testimony is sufficient to convict than was then required,” su 2016A law can work to a defendant’s disadvantage and thereby violate the ex post facto clause in four ways: “(1) by punishing as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; (2) by making more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission[;] (3) by depriving one charged with [a] crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed,” Hankerson, 723 N.W.2d at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted); and (4) by “changing] the rules of evidence [so that] less or different testimony is sufficient to convict than was then required,” su | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harringtongreen1 sentence2011See State v. Harrington, 504 N.W.2d 500, 503 (Minn.App.1993) (rejecting an ex post facto challenge to a harassment restraining order because “[a]lthough the restraining order was based on events occurring before enactment of [the statute], the restraining order did not apply to events occurring before the enactment”), review denied (Minn. Sept. 30, 1993). ' Second, the district court issued the OFP extension because appellant’s contact with his ex-wife was criminal when it was committed under OFPs that existed at the time. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ringgreen2 sentences2006Hence, the changes to the state's capital sentencing procedures do not resemble the type of after-the-fact legislative evil contemplated by contemporary understandings of the ex post facto doctrine. 65 P.3d at 928 (citations and footnote omitted). [7] Even if the 2005 amendments did not fall under this procedural law exception, they are not prohibited as ex post facto laws because they do not work to Hankerson's disadvantage. 2006Hence, the changes to the state’s capital sentencing procedures do not resemble the type of after-the-fact legislative evil contemplated by contemporary understandings of the ex post facto doctrine. 65 P.3d at 928 (citations and footnote omitted). 7 Even if the 2005 amendments did not fall under this procedural law exception, they are not prohibited as ex post facto laws because they do not work to Hankerson’s disadvantage. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2004See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 28-29 , 101 S.Ct. at 964 ; see also State v. Garcia, 670 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Minn.App.2003) (holding that the 2000 amendment did not violate the ex post facto clause because "[w]hen enacted, the [2000] amendment merely exposed appellant to possible additional punishment in the event of a future probation violation"), review granted (Minn. Dec. 23, 2003); Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912, 918 (Co.1993) (holding that application of a statute prohibiting credit for time on parole did not implicate ex post facto prohibition because the forfeiture of jail credit was based on "an 2004See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 28-29 , 101 S.Ct. at 964 ; see also State v. Garcia, 670 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Minn.App.2003) (holding that the 2000 amendment did not violate the ex post facto clause because “[wjhen enacted, the [2000] amendment merely exposed appellant to possible additional punishment in the event of a future probation violation”), review granted (Minn. Dec. 23, 2003); Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912, 918 (Co.1993) (holding that application of a statute prohibiting credit for time on parole did not implicate ex post facto prohibition because the forfeiture of jail credit was based on “an | 1 | 1 |
Gasper v. Guntergreen2 sentences2004See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 28-29 , 101 S.Ct. at 964 ; see also State v. Garcia, 670 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Minn.App.2003) (holding that the 2000 amendment did not violate the ex post facto clause because "[w]hen enacted, the [2000] amendment merely exposed appellant to possible additional punishment in the event of a future probation violation"), review granted (Minn. Dec. 23, 2003); Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912, 918 (Co.1993) (holding that application of a statute prohibiting credit for time on parole did not implicate ex post facto prohibition because the forfeiture of jail credit was based on "an 2004See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 28-29 , 101 S.Ct. at 964 ; see also State v. Garcia, 670 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Minn.App.2003) (holding that the 2000 amendment did not violate the ex post facto clause because “[wjhen enacted, the [2000] amendment merely exposed appellant to possible additional punishment in the event of a future probation violation”), review granted (Minn. Dec. 23, 2003); Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912, 918 (Co.1993) (holding that application of a statute prohibiting credit for time on parole did not implicate ex post facto prohibition because the forfeiture of jail credit was based on “an | 1 | 1 |
Weaver v. Grahamgreen2 sentences2004See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 28-29 , 101 S.Ct. at 964 ; see also State v. Garcia, 670 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Minn.App.2003) (holding that the 2000 amendment did not violate the ex post facto clause because “[wjhen enacted, the [2000] amendment merely exposed appellant to possible additional punishment in the event of a future probation violation”), review granted (Minn. Dec. 23, 2003); Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912, 918 (Co.1993) (holding that application of a statute prohibiting credit for time on parole did not implicate ex post facto prohibition because the forfeiture of jail credit was based on “an 2004See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 28-29 , 101 S.Ct. at 964 ; see also State v. Garcia, 670 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Minn.App.2003) (holding that the 2000 amendment did not violate the ex post facto clause because “[wjhen enacted, the [2000] amendment merely exposed appellant to possible additional punishment in the event of a future probation violation”), review granted (Minn. Dec. 23, 2003); Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912, 918 (Co.1993) (holding that application of a statute prohibiting credit for time on parole did not implicate ex post facto prohibition because the forfeiture of jail credit was based on “an | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dumasgreen1 sentence2003See State v. Dumas, 587 N.W.2d 299, 304 (Minn.App.1998) (ex post facto law applies to events occurring before its enactment), review denied (Minn. 24 Feb. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Marks v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1995See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 , 191—92, 97 S.Ct. 990, 992-93 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 411 , 216 N.W.2d 641, 648 (1974) (noting that defendant lacked fair notice that materials he sold would be judicially construed as “obscene”). 1995See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 , 191—92, 97 S.Ct. 990, 992-93 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 411 , 216 N.W.2d 641, 648 (1974) (noting that defendant lacked fair notice that materials he sold would be judicially construed as “obscene”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Welkegreen2 sentences1995See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 , 191—92, 97 S.Ct. 990, 992-93 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 411 , 216 N.W.2d 641, 648 (1974) (noting that defendant lacked fair notice that materials he sold would be judicially construed as “obscene”). 1995See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 , 191—92, 97 S.Ct. 990, 992-93 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977); State v. Welke, 298 Minn. 402, 411 , 216 N.W.2d 641, 648 (1974) (noting that defendant lacked fair notice that materials he sold would be judicially construed as “obscene”). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 1 |
Chmiel v. Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F. | 1 | 1 |
Falter v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Valentino R. Madia, Jr., United States of America v. Paul Kampengreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Barry L. Knipp (91-5312), and Vernon L. Hamilton (91-5452)green2 sentences1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Paul A. Taliaferrogreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F. | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Ronald C. Brechtel and Phillip H. Gattusogreen | 1 | 1 |
Charles Bassil Clements, Jr. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Creekpaumgreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bargerongreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 1994See, e.g., United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir.1993) (retroactive extension of the limitations period does not violate the ex post facto clause), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 605 , 126 L.Ed.2d 570 (1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir.1992) (congress has the authority to extend a statute of limitations where the original time period has not run); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir.1992) (extension of a limitations period before that period has run does not violate the ex post facto clause); United States v. Madia, 955 F.2d 5 | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Eric Alan Wayne, United States of America v. Eric Alan Waynegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Haas v. Hathawayred2 sentences2004See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 28-29 , 101 S.Ct. at 964 ; see also State v. Garcia, 670 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Minn.App.2003) (holding that the 2000 amendment did not violate the ex post facto clause because “[wjhen enacted, the [2000] amendment merely exposed appellant to possible additional punishment in the event of a future probation violation”), review granted (Minn. Dec. 23, 2003); Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912, 918 (Co.1993) (holding that application of a statute prohibiting credit for time on parole did not implicate ex post facto prohibition because the forfeiture of jail credit was based on “an 2004See Weaver, 450 U.S. at 28-29 , 101 S.Ct. at 964 ; see also State v. Garcia, 670 N.W.2d 297, 299 (Minn.App.2003) (holding that the 2000 amendment did not violate the ex post facto clause because “[wjhen enacted, the [2000] amendment merely exposed appellant to possible additional punishment in the event of a future probation violation”), review granted (Minn. Dec. 23, 2003); Gasper v. Gunter, 851 P.2d 912, 918 (Co.1993) (holding that application of a statute prohibiting credit for time on parole did not implicate ex post facto prohibition because the forfeiture of jail credit was based on “an | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joel Armen Underwood, III. v. State of Minnesota
neutral
1 sentence2025Underwood, 8 N.W.3d at 661 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Ryan
green
1 sentence2016Raw v. Bergstrom, 845 N.W.2d 764, 794 (Minn.2014) (quoting State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 370, 375-76 , 13 Gil. 343 , 348 (1868)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Burns
green
1 sentence1999An ex post facto violation does not occur “if the change effected is merely procedural and does not increase the punishment, change the elements of the offense, or change the ultimate facts necessary to establish guilt.” Burns, 524 N.W.2d at 520 (citing United States ex. rel. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Howard green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Willis green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.