State v. Bullock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Under long established principle, the prohibition against ex post facto laws includes not only those laws which make acts criminal though done before the enactment made them unlawful, but also it prohibits the enforcement of any enactment which changes the punishment so as to inflict a greater punishment than that authorized for the crime when committed. See: Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 , 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798), and the similar interpretation uniformly given by later jurisprudence; 1 Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law § 5:133 (1969). `The Constitution forbids the application of any new punitive measure to a crime already consummated, to the detriment or material disadvantage of the wrongdoer.' Lindsey v. State of Washington, 301 U.S. 397, 401 , 57 S.Ct. 797, 799 , 81 L.Ed. 1182 (1937). Thus, this court has held that a subsequent enactment which abolished a prior right of parole was null as an ex post facto enactment insofar as applied to persons convicted for offenses committed prior to it. State ex rel. Woodward v. Board of Parole, 155 La. 699 , 99 So. 534 (1924). See also, e. g., Lindsey v. State of Washington, 301 U.S. 397 , 57 S.Ct. 797 , 81 L.Ed. 1182 (1934) and In Re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 , 10 S.Ct. 384 , 33 L.Ed. 835 (1890). If this same prosecution for a 1966 offense had been remanded or retried prior to enactment of the 1972 act, the defendant had available, if he received a life sentence, the same right to apply for commutation or parole then applicable to all ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 363 So. 2d 1375 - State v. Curtis