Citation network
Stogner Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 2003
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. 607 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Stogner V. CaliforniaSearch
-
retroactive effects. Calder v. BullSearch
-
categorical descriptions of ex post facto laws that Justice Chase set forth more than 200 years ago in Calder v. BullSearch
-
which this Court has recognized as an authoritative account of the Clause's scope, Collins v. YoungbloodSearch
-
s privilege against self-incrimination does not apply after the relevant limitations period has expired, Brown v. WalkerSearch
-
retroactively tolling limitations periods during the war was valid as an exercise of Congress' war powers, Stewart v. KahnSearch
-
the California Court of Appeal reversed, citing a recent, contrary decision by the California Supreme Court, People v. FrazerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The trial court denied Stogner's motion, and the Court of Appeal upheld that denial. Stogner v. SuperiorSearch
-
Falter v. UnitedSearch
-
and erosion of the separation of powers, Weaver, supra, at 29, and n. 10. See Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
the categorical descriptions of ex post facto laws set forth by Justice Chase more than 200 years ago in Calder v. BullSearch
-
Court has recognized as providing an authoritative account of the scope of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Collins v. YoungbloodSearch
-
of the kind of statute at issue here. Moore v. StateSearch
-
a legislative judgment that, after a certain time, no quantum of evidence is sufficient to convict. See United States v. MarionSearch
-
concern that the passage of time has eroded memories or made witnesses or other evidence unavailable. United States v. KubrickSearch
-
ex post facto. That view was echoed in roughly contemporaneous opinions by State Supreme Courts. E. g., State v. SneedSearch
-
Moore, 43 N. J. L., at 216-217. Cf. State v. KeithSearch
-
in Frazer, have continued to state such views, and, when necessary, so to hold. E. g., People ex rel. Reibman v. WardenSearch
-
United States v. FraidinSearch
-
People v. SheddSearch
-
State v. HodgsonSearch
-
Wash. 2d 662, 667669, 740 P. 2d 848, 851-852 (1987) (en bane), cert. denied sub nom. Fied v. WashingtonSearch
-
Commonwealth v. RocheleauSearch
-
State v. NunnSearch
-
State v. O'NeillSearch
-
State v. HirschSearch
-
State v. SchultzenSearch
-
State v. ComeauSearch
-
N. H. 84, 88, 697 A. 2d 497, 500 (1997) (citing State v. HamelSearch
-
Santiago v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Mass. 39, 42, 697 N. E. 2d 979, 981, cert. denied, 525 U. S. 1003 (1998). Cf. Thompson v. StateSearch
-
State v. CookmanSearch
-
Commonwealth v. GuimentoSearch
-
People v. ChesebroSearch
-
that suggests a presumption that revival of time-barred criminal cases is not allowed. E. g., United States v. MadiaSearch
-
People v. AndersonSearch
-
United States v. HaugSearch
-
United States v. KurzenknabeSearch
-
State v. DuffySearch
-
State v. DavenportSearch
-
Andrews v. StateSearch
-
as directly supporting a conclusion that a law reviving time-barred offenses is ex post facto). Cf. Commonwealth v. DuffySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial