Citation network
Smith Vs. Doe
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 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. 84 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Smith Et Al. V. DoeSearch
-
intent was to create a civil, nonpunitive regime. The Court first considers the statute's text and structure, Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
asking whether the legislature indicated either expressly or impliedly a preference for one label or the other, Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
as evidencing an intent to exercise that regulatory power, and not a purpose to add to the punishment. E. g., Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
a statute's location and labels do not by themselves transform a civil remedy into a criminal one. See United States v. OneSearch
-
civil procedures, the legislature indicated clearly that it intended a civil, not a criminal, sanction. United States v. UrserySearch
-
establish a civil regulatory scheme. In analyzing the effects, the Court refers to the seven factors noted in Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
than require individual determination of their dangerousness, does not render the Act punitive. See, e. g., Hawker v. NewSearch
-
of Vermont, Iver A. Stridiron of the Virgin Islands, Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, Darrell V. McGrawSearch
-
despite the legislature's intent. In consequence, it held the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Doe I v. OtteSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting United States v. WardSearch
-
Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. OneSearch
-
supra, at 99. We consider the statute's text and its structure to determine the legislative objective. Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
As the Court stated in Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
U. S., at 616 (citing Hawker v. NewSearch
-
U. S., at 364 (quoting Huddleston v. UnitedSearch
-
State v. HannaganSearch
-
regime. 97 B In analyzing the effects of the Act we refer to the seven factors noted in Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
De Veau v. BraistedSearch
-
Hawker v. NewSearch
-
the supervising officer to seek the revocation of probation or release in case of infraction. See generally Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
in our ex post facto jurisprudence. Seling v. YoungSearch
-
legislature's preferred classification to the law's substance, focusing on its purpose and effects. See United States v. WardSearch
-
factors will be able to overcome the legislative categorization. Ward, supra, at 249 (quoting Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
burden makes sense only when the evidence of legislative intent clearly points in the civil direction. See Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
Allen v. IllinoisSearch
-
Petitioners 26, n. 13. Ensuring public safety is, of course, a fundamental regulatory goal, see, e. g., United States v. SalernoSearch
-
further, given pervasive attitudes toward sex offenders, see infra this page and 110, n. See Weaver v. GrahamSearch
-
that we upheld in Hudson v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 522 U. S. 93 (1997), De Veau v. BraistedSearch
-
U. S. 144 (1960), and Hawker v. NewSearch
-
there is significant evidence of onerous practical effects of being listed on a sex offender registry. See, e. g., Doe v. PatakiSearch
-
E. B. v. VernieroSearch
-
Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. DoeSearch
-
were implicated, it seems clear that neither statute would raise a colorable constitutional claim. Cf. Meachum v. FanoSearch
-
In my judgment, these statutes unquestionably affect a constitutionally protected interest in liberty. Cf. Wisconsin v. ConstantineauSearch
-
Ex Post Facto Clause to deny future privileges to individuals who were convicted of crimes. See, e. g., De Veau v. BraistedSearch
-
one. That is, one may be barred from participation in a union because he has not paid fines imposed on him. See NLRB v. Allis-ChalmersSearch
-
West Supp. 2002). 113 Likewise, in Kansas v. HendricksSearch
-
Syllabus Smith Et Al. V. DoeSearch
-
See United States v. OneSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial