Citation network
Garner Vs. Jones
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 28, 2000
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
-
October Term, 1999 Syllabus Garner, Former Chairman of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles of Georgia, Et Al. V. JonesSearch
-
differed in material respects from the change in California parole law sustained in California Dept. of Corrections v. MoralesSearch
-
Eleventh Circuit held that retroactive application of the amended Rule violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. Akins v. SnowSearch
-
offense. App.53-54. In 1995 the Parole Board determined that our decision in California Dept. of Corrections v. MoralesSearch
-
which, by retroactive operation, increase the punishment for a crime after its com- 250 mISSIOn. Collins v. YoungbloodSearch
-
U. S. 37 , 42 (1990) (citing Beazell v. OhioSearch
-
changes in laws governing parole of prisoners, in some instances, may be violative of this precept. See Lynce v. MathisSearch
-
U. S. 433 , 445-446 (1997) (citing Weaver v. GrahamSearch
-
the Parole Board possesses in determining whether an inmate should receive early release. Accord, Sultenfuss v. SnowSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
can a prisoner challenge a parole denial in the Georgia courts. Lewis v. GrifSearch
-
the parole context, and the Court has stated that the Ex Post Facto Clause guards against such abuse. See Miller v. FloridaSearch
-
U. S. 423 , 429 (1987) (citing Calder v. BullSearch
-
upon the offender's release, along with a complex of other factors, will inform parole decisions. See, e. g., Justice v. StateSearch
-
that an agency's policies and practices will indicate the manner in which it is exercising its discretion. Cf. INS v. Yueh-ShaioSearch
-
follows its statutory commands and internal policies in fulfilling its obligations. Cf. United States ex rel. Accardi v. ShaugnessySearch
-
California's Board of Prison Terms discretion to decrease the frequency. See California Dept. of Corrections v. MoralesSearch
-
on the class subject to the new rule, rather than focusing solely on the individual challenging the change, Weaver v. GraSearch
-
he would previously have received, since a sentencing decision is often a mix of rules and discretion. See Lindsey v. WashingtonSearch
-
a purpose to increase punishment, absent a punitive effect, itself invalidates a retroactive policy change, see Lynce v. MathisSearch
-
ante, at 252, that the Court required no particular procedural safeguards in California Dept. of Corrections v. MoralesSearch
-
will actually be applied in a way that diminishes the significant probability of increased punishment. Cf. Penson v. OhioSearch
-
Syllabus Garner, Former Chairman of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles of Georgia, Et Al. V. JonesSearch
-
the Ex Post Facto Clause. Akins v. SnowSearch
-
Beazell v. OhioSearch
-
See Lynce v. MathisSearch
-
Accord, Sultenfuss v. SnowSearch
-
Lewis v. GrifSearch
-
See Miller v. FloridaSearch
-
Justice v. StateSearch
-
Cf. INS v. Yueh-ShaioSearch
-
Accardi v. ShaugnessySearch
-
See California Dept. of Corrections v. MoralesSearch
-
Weaver v. GraSearch
-
See Lindsey v. WashingtonSearch
-
Cf. Penson v. OhioSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial