Citation network
Lynce Vs. Mathis
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 19, 1997
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
-
U.S. 433 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Lynce V. MathisSearch
-
U. S. 24 , 29, by, inter alia, increasing the punishment for the crime, see Collins v. YoungbloodSearch
-
and a determination that it disadvantaged petitioner by increasing his punishment is supported by Weaver v. GrahamSearch
-
to reward good behavior is not relevant to the essential ex post facto inquiry. California Dept. of Corrections v. MoralesSearch
-
order. Because the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reached a different conclusion on similar facts, Arnold v. CodySearch
-
of 1,860 days. Disciplinary action resulted in a forfeiture of 295 days. 2 Hock v. SingletarySearch
-
F.3d 1470 (1995). 3 Dugger v. RodrickSearch
-
So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Rodrick v. SingletarySearch
-
Presumably they are satisfied, as we are, that exhaustion would have been futile. The Florida Supreme Court, in Dugger v. RodrickSearch
-
When rights. Relying on Dugger, the Florida Supreme Court held in Griffin v. SingletarySearch
-
a decree establishing a limit on the prison population that could not be exceeded without court approval. See Costello v. WainwrightSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Land graf v. USISearch
-
Grif fin v. SingletarySearch
-
has made with its subjects. The basic principle is one that protects not only the rich and the powerful, United States v. WinstarSearch
-
In his opinion for the Court in Beazell v. OhioSearch
-
from singling out disfavored persons and meting out summary punishment for past conduct. See, e. g., United States v. BrownSearch
-
id., at 29, by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime, see Collins v. YoungbloodSearch
-
of overcrowding credits inflicts greater punishment, petitioner relies primarily on our decision in Weaver v. GrahamSearch
-
s action lengthened the sentence without examining the purposes behind the original sentencing scheme. In Miller v. FloridaSearch
-
id., at 431 (quoting Dobbert v. FloridaSearch
-
In California Dept. of Corrections v. MoralesSearch
-
than at the time of the crime. See id., at 509-510 (quoting Dobbert v. FloridaSearch
-
There is no merit to this argument in any case. We explained in Dobbert v. FloridaSearch
-
See Griffin v. SingletarySearch
-
law retroactively increases a criminal punishment is often a close question. In California Dept. of Corrections v. MoralesSearch
-
the Constitution's ban on ex post facto lawmaking. I do not, however, join the majority's discussion of Weaver v. GrahamSearch
-
Syllabus Lynce V. MathisSearch
-
Arnold v. CodySearch
-
Hock v. SingletarySearch
-
Dugger v. RodrickSearch
-
Rodrick v. SingletarySearch
-
Griffin v. SingletarySearch
-
See Costello v. WainwrightSearch
-
United States v. WinstarSearch
-
Beazell v. OhioSearch
-
United States v. BrownSearch
-
In Miller v. FloridaSearch
-
Dobbert v. FloridaSearch
-
of Weaver v. GrahamSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial