Citation network
Collins Vs. Youngblood
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 21, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 37 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Collins v. YoungbloodSearch
-
U.S. 37 (1990) Collins v. YoungbloodSearch
-
in Federal District Court, which was denied. The Court of Appeals reversed. Relying on the statement in Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
Although the rule of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
one charged with a crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, Beazell v. OhioSearch
-
discussion in Beazell, Duncan v. MissouriSearch
-
U. S. 377 , 152 U. S. 382 -383, and Malloy v. SouthSearch
-
read to adopt without explanation an undefined enlargement of the Clause. Pp. 497 U. S. 41 -46. (b) Kring v. MissouriSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 221 , and Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
to a term of imprisonment for his offense, and, thus, under the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Bogany v. StateSearch
-
there was no ex post facto violation. App. to Pet. for Cert. C-6. The Court of Appeals reversed. Youngblood v. LynaughSearch
-
F.2d 956 (CA5 1989). It relied on the statement in this Court's decision in Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
which would not apply retroactively under our decisions in Teague v. LaneSearch
-
U. S. 288 (1989), and Butler v. McKellarSearch
-
that this Court, despite a limited grant of certiorari, must raise and decide the issue sua sponte. Cf. Patsy v. BoardSearch
-
on ex post facto laws applied only to penal statutes which disadvantage the offender affected by them. Calder v. BullSearch
-
id. at 3 U. S. 400 (opinion of Iredell, J.). See Miller v. FloridaSearch
-
Early opinions of the Court portrayed this as an exclusive definition of ex post facto laws. Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
Wall. 35, 76 U. S. 38 (1870). So well accepted were these principles that the Court, in Beazell v. OhioSearch
-
Id. at 269 U. S. 169 -170. Page 497 U. S. 43 See also Dobbert v. FloridaSearch
-
even though they work to the disadvantage of the accused, do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Dobbert v. FloridaSearch
-
Mallett v. NorthSearch
-
Malloy v. SouthSearch
-
This Court's decision in Duncan v. MissouriSearch
-
Id. at 152 U. S. 382 -383 (other citations omitted) (emphasis added). Later, in Malloy v. SouthSearch
-
a legislature does not thereby immunize it from scrutiny under the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Gibson v. MississippiSearch
-
Two decisions of this Court, relied upon by respondent, do not fit into this analytical framework. In Kring v. MissouriSearch
-
Id. at 107 U. S. 228 -229 (quoting United States v. HallSearch
-
F.Cas. 84, 86 (No. 15,285) (D. Pa.1809)) (emphasis deleted). And in Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
Clause, as exemplified by the opinions of the District Court and Court of Appeals in this case. See also Murphy v. KentuckySearch
-
United States v. KowalSearch
-
The earlier decision, Kring v. MissouriSearch
-
Kring, 107 U.S. at 107 U. S. 228 -229 Page 497 U. S. 49 (quoting United States v. HallSearch
-
Constitution, and is not supported by later cases. We accordingly overrule Kring. The second case, Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
was prohibited by the Ex Post Facto Clause. Id. at 170 U. S. 352 -353. The result in Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
foreshadowed our decision in Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
which held that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury -- then believed to mean a jury of 12, see, e.g., Patton v. UnitedSearch
-
crimes, defenses, or punishments, which is the concern of the Ex Post Facto Clause. To the extent that Thompson v. UtahSearch
-
Although there has been some debate within the Court about the accuracy of the historical discussion in Calder v. BullSearch
-
The Beazell definition omits the reference by Justice Chase in Calder v. BullSearch
-
Hopt v. UtahSearch
-
to prohibit the application of new evidentiary rules in trials for crimes committed before the changes. Thompson v. MissouriSearch
-
The Court's holding in Thompson v. UtahSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial