State v. Redmond’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under Rogers [v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 , 121 S. Ct. 1693 , 149 L. Ed. 2d 697 (2001)], the U.S. Constitution does not require that retroactive judicial decisions be analyzed with reference to the Ex Post Facto Clause. Instead, a judicial decision interpreting a statute may be applied retroactively unless the decision denies due process by being both unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue. In this case, the change of law in State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190 , 583 N.W.2d 31 (1998), cannot be said to be indefensible. Indefensible is defined as “incapable of being maintained as right or valid” or “incapable of being justified or excused.” ... Thus, in a case such as Bouie [v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 , 84 S. Ct. 1697 , 12 L. Ed. 2d 894 (1964)], where a court interprets a statute in a surprising manner that has little in the way of legal support, the interpretation could not be applied retroactively. Our decision in Burlison was not such a case. The basis of the Burlison decision was the plain language of [Neb. Rev. Stat.] § 28-304 [(Reissue 1995)]. We recognized in Burlison that it was improper to read the element of malice into that statute. In Nebraska, all crimes are statutory, and no act is criminal unless the Legislature has in express terms declared it to be so____It is not within the province of the courts to read a meaning into a statute that is not there, nor read anything direct and plain out of a ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Davlin