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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tapia v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2021I, § 9; Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 ; Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 288 .) We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart. 2006I, § 9; Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 30 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 ] (Collins); Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 288 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] (Tapia).) *1164 We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart. 6 (People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ].) The traditional understanding of the ex post facto clause was expressed in Beazell v. Ohio (1925) 269 U.S. 167, 169-170 [ 70 L.Ed. 216 , 46 S.Ct. 68 ], as follows: “It is settled . . . that any statute which punishes as | 2 | 5 |
People v. Snookgreen2 sentences2006I, § 9; Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 30 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 ] (Collins); Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 288 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] (Tapia).) *1164 We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart. 6 (People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ].) The traditional understanding of the ex post facto clause was expressed in Beazell v. Ohio (1925) 269 U.S. 167, 169-170 [ 70 L.Ed. 216 , 46 S.Ct. 68 ], as follows: “It is settled . . . that any statute which punishes as 2006I, § 9; Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 30 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 ] (Collins); Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 288 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] (Tapia).) *1164 We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart. 6 (People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ].) The traditional understanding of the ex post facto clause was expressed in Beazell v. Ohio (1925) 269 U.S. 167, 169-170 [ 70 L.Ed. 216 , 46 S.Ct. 68 ], as follows: “It is settled . . . that any statute which punishes as | 2 | 3 |
People v. McVickersgreen2 sentences2006I, § 9; Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 30 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 ] (Collins); Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 288 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] (Tapia).) *1164 We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart. 6 (People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ].) The traditional understanding of the ex post facto clause was expressed in Beazell v. Ohio (1925) 269 U.S. 167, 169-170 [ 70 L.Ed. 216 , 46 S.Ct. 68 ], as follows: “It is settled . . . that any statute which punishes as 2006I, § 9; Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 30 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 ] (Collins); Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 288 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] (Tapia).) *1164 We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart. 6 (People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ].) The traditional understanding of the ex post facto clause was expressed in Beazell v. Ohio (1925) 269 U.S. 167, 169-170 [ 70 L.Ed. 216 , 46 S.Ct. 68 ], as follows: “It is settled . . . that any statute which punishes as | 2 | 2 |
Collins v. Youngbloodgreen2 sentences2021I, § 9; Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 ; Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 288 .) We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart. 2013(People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1163 (Delgado).) “We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart.” (Id. at p. 1164, fn. omitted.) “[E]x post facto principles are applicable to juvenile proceedings.” (In re Melvin J. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 742, 760 , overruled on other grounds in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 181, fn. 7 [also applying ex post facto analysis in a juvenile case].) “ „[A]ny statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment | 1 | 5 |
Beazell v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2013(People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1163 (Delgado).) “We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart.” (Id. at p. 1164, fn. omitted.) “[E]x post facto principles are applicable to juvenile proceedings.” (In re Melvin J. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 742, 760 , overruled on other grounds in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 181, fn. 7 [also applying ex post facto analysis in a juvenile case].) “ „[A]ny statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment 2006I, § 9; Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 30 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 ] (Collins); Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 288 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] (Tapia).) *1164 We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart. 6 (People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ].) The traditional understanding of the ex post facto clause was expressed in Beazell v. Ohio (1925) 269 U.S. 167, 169-170 [ 70 L.Ed. 216 , 46 S.Ct. 68 ], as follows: “It is settled . . . that any statute which punishes as | 1 | 3 |
People v. Delgadogreen2 sentences2013(People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1163 (Delgado).) “We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart.” (Id. at p. 1164, fn. omitted.) “[E]x post facto principles are applicable to juvenile proceedings.” (In re Melvin J. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 742, 760 , overruled on other grounds in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 181, fn. 7 [also applying ex post facto analysis in a juvenile case].) “ „[A]ny statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment 2013(People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1163 (Delgado).) “We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart.” (Id. at p. 1164, fn. omitted.) “[E]x post facto principles are applicable to juvenile proceedings.” (In re Melvin J. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 742, 760 , overruled on other grounds in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 181, fn. 7 [also applying ex post facto analysis in a juvenile case].) “ „[A]ny statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment | 1 | 2 |
Garner v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2013(People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1163 (Delgado).) “We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart.” (Id. at p. 1164, fn. omitted.) “[E]x post facto principles are applicable to juvenile proceedings.” (In re Melvin J. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 742, 760 , overruled on other grounds in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 181, fn. 7 [also applying ex post facto analysis in a juvenile case].) “ „[A]ny statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment | 1 | 1 |
In re Vicksgreen1 sentence2013(People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1163 (Delgado).) “We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart.” (Id. at p. 1164, fn. omitted.) “[E]x post facto principles are applicable to juvenile proceedings.” (In re Melvin J. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 742, 760 , overruled on other grounds in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 181, fn. 7 [also applying ex post facto analysis in a juvenile case].) “ „[A]ny statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment | 1 | 1 |
John L. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2013(People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1163 (Delgado).) “We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart.” (Id. at p. 1164, fn. omitted.) “[E]x post facto principles are applicable to juvenile proceedings.” (In re Melvin J. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 742, 760 , overruled on other grounds in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 181, fn. 7 [also applying ex post facto analysis in a juvenile case].) “ „[A]ny statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment | 1 | 1 |
Hubbart v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1999We have consistently interpreted the state ex post facto clause no differently from its federal counterparts, viewing United States Supreme Court cases as persuasive authority on the subject. ( People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 158 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 , 973 P.2d 72 ; Hubhart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1171 , 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ; People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 , 69 Cal. Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ; People v. Helms (1997) 15 Cal.4th 608, 614 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 620 , 936 P.2d 1230 ; People v. McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81, 84 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 , 1999We have consistently interpreted the state ex post facto clause no differently from its federal counterparts, viewing United States Supreme Court cases as persuasive authority on the subject. ( People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 158 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 , 973 P.2d 72 ; Hubhart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1171 , 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ; People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 , 69 Cal. Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ; People v. Helms (1997) 15 Cal.4th 608, 614 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 620 , 936 P.2d 1230 ; People v. McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81, 84 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 , | 1 | 1 |
People v. Helmsgreen2 sentences1999We have consistently interpreted the state ex post facto clause no differently from its federal counterparts, viewing United States Supreme Court cases as persuasive authority on the subject. ( People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 158 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 , 973 P.2d 72 ; Hubhart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1171 , 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ; People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 , 69 Cal. Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ; People v. Helms (1997) 15 Cal.4th 608, 614 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 620 , 936 P.2d 1230 ; People v. McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81, 84 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 , 1999We have consistently interpreted the state ex post facto clause no differently from its federal counterparts, viewing United States Supreme Court cases as persuasive authority on the subject. ( People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 158 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 , 973 P.2d 72 ; Hubhart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1171 , 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ; People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 , 69 Cal. Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ; People v. Helms (1997) 15 Cal.4th 608, 614 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 620 , 936 P.2d 1230 ; People v. McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81, 84 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 , | 1 | 1 |
People v. Grantgreen2 sentences1999We have consistently interpreted the state ex post facto clause no differently from its federal counterparts, viewing United States Supreme Court cases as persuasive authority on the subject. ( People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 158 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 , 973 P.2d 72 ; Hubhart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1171 , 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ; People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 , 69 Cal. Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ; People v. Helms (1997) 15 Cal.4th 608, 614 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 620 , 936 P.2d 1230 ; People v. McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81, 84 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 , 1999We have consistently interpreted the state ex post facto clause no differently from its federal counterparts, viewing United States Supreme Court cases as persuasive authority on the subject. ( People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 158 , 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 , 973 P.2d 72 ; Hubhart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1171 , 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ; People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 , 69 Cal. Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ; People v. Helms (1997) 15 Cal.4th 608, 614 , 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 620 , 936 P.2d 1230 ; People v. McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81, 84 , 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 , | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Calder v. Bull
green
2 sentences2006I, § 9; Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 30 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 ] (Collins); Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 288 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] (Tapia).) *1164 We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart. 6 (People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ].) The traditional understanding of the ex post facto clause was expressed in Beazell v. Ohio (1925) 269 U.S. 167, 169-170 [ 70 L.Ed. 216 , 46 S.Ct. 68 ], as follows: “It is settled . . . that any statute which punishes as 2006I, § 9; Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 41 [ 111 L.Ed.2d 30 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 ] (Collins); Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 288 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] (Tapia).) *1164 We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart. 6 (People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1220 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 947 P.2d 808 ].) The traditional understanding of the ex post facto clause was expressed in Beazell v. Ohio (1925) 269 U.S. 167, 169-170 [ 70 L.Ed. 216 , 46 S.Ct. 68 ], as follows: “It is settled . . . that any statute which punishes as | 2 | 1999–2006 |
People v. Melvin J.
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1163 (Delgado).) “We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart.” (Id. at p. 1164, fn. omitted.) “[E]x post facto principles are applicable to juvenile proceedings.” (In re Melvin J. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 742, 760 , overruled on other grounds in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 181, fn. 7 [also applying ex post facto analysis in a juvenile case].) “ „[A]ny statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment | 1 | 2013–2013 |
California Department of Corrections v. Morales
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1163 (Delgado).) “We interpret the state ex post facto clause no differently than its federal counterpart.” (Id. at p. 1164, fn. omitted.) “[E]x post facto principles are applicable to juvenile proceedings.” (In re Melvin J. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 742, 760 , overruled on other grounds in John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 181, fn. 7 [also applying ex post facto analysis in a juvenile case].) “ „[A]ny statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.