Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Johnson Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 22, 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

75 entries 7 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Cooper US Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1887
  2. United States Vs. Holmes US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1820
  3. United States Vs. Rockwell US Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1887
  4. Calder Vs. Bull US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1798
  5. United States Vs. Page US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1891
  6. Lynce Vs. Mathis US Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1997
  7. United States Vs. Hale US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1975
  8. Johnson v. United
    Search
  9. States - 529 U.S. 694 (2000) October Term, 1999 Syllabus Johnson V. United
    Search
  10. date simply indicates that, absent clear congressional direction, it takes effect on its enactment date, Gozlon-Peretz v. United
    Search
  11. of postconfinement monitoring overseen by the sentencing court, rather than the Parole Commission. See Gozlon-Peretz v. United
    Search
  12. a district court to impose a new term of supervised release following revocation and reimprisonment. See United States v. Truss
    Search
  13. supervised 2 Of the 11 Circuits to consider the issue, 9 had reached this conclusion. See, e. g., United States v. Koehler
    Search
  14. United States v. Malesic
    Search
  15. United States v. Truss
    Search
  16. United States v. McGee
    Search
  17. United States v. Behnezhad
    Search
  18. United States v. Tatum
    Search
  19. See United States v. O'Neil
    Search
  20. United States v. Schrader
    Search
  21. With no retroactivity, there could be no Ex Post Facto Clause violation. See App. 49 (citing United States v. Abbington
    Search
  22. and that it raises the penalty from whatever the law provided when he acted. See California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales
    Search
  23. revocation 3 See, e. g., United States v. Eske
    Search
  24. United States v. Lominae
    Search
  25. United States v. Dozier
    Search
  26. United States v. Collins
    Search
  27. United States v. Meeks
    Search
  28. h) did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Sandoval
    Search
  29. for the initial offense, however (as most courts have done), avoids these difficulties. See, e. g., United States v. Wyatt
    Search
  30. United States v. Beals
    Search
  31. noncriminal violations must be justified by reference to original crimes), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Withers
    Search
  32. CA2 1994) (noting absence of constitutional procedural protections in revocation proceedings). Cf. Gagnon v. Scarpelli
    Search
  33. For that matter, such treatment is all but entailed by our summary affirmance of Greenfield v. Scafati
    Search
  34. legislation, especially of the criminal sort, is not to be applied retroactively. See, e. g., Lynce v. Mathis
    Search
  35. Landgraf v. USI
    Search
  36. does not, by itself, tell us when or how that legislative decision was intended to take effect. See Rivers v. Roadway
    Search
  37. comment., n. 2 (Nov. 1998) (USSG). So, too, have the federal courts. See, e. g., United States v. Hale
    Search
  38. took a similar approach in Cisneros v. Alpine
    Search
  39. way in subsection (3), but it turns out that the unconventional sense is not unheard of. See United States v. O'Neil
    Search
  40. release) is in tension with the result that customary interpretive rules would deliver. See, e. g., Commissioner v. Brown
    Search
  41. its words where acceptance of that meaning ... would thwart the obvious purpose of the statute''') (quoting Helvering v. Hammel
    Search
  42. a), a plain meaning approach would find authority for reimposition of supervised release there. Cf. United States v. Wesley
    Search
  43. the odds of a successful transition 709 from the prison to liberty. See, e. g., United States v. Johnson
    Search
  44. moreover, in the pre-Guidelines practice with respect to nondetentive monitoring, as illuminated in United States v. O'Neil
    Search
  45. out of an identifiable predecessor, it is reasonable to look to the precursor in fathoming the new law. Cf. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca
    Search
  46. to congressional purpose so long as the congressional language does not itself bar that result. See, e. g., Holloway v. United
    Search
  47. Caron v. United
    Search
  48. See United States v. Heirs
    Search
  49. United States v. Paskow
    Search
  50. c) (1982 ed.), see, e. g., Evans v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial