Beazell v. State of Ohio Chatfield’s Empirical Analysis
269 U.S. 167 · 1925
Citation profile
414 federal appellate · 106 district · 907 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,758 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), Lindh v. Murphy (1997)
414 federal appellate · 106 district · 907 state decisions — followed in 47 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah · Wilson v. United States · Cummings v. The State of Missouri
Cited together with Collins v. Youngblood · Dobbert v. Florida · Weaver v. Graham · Miller v. Florida · California Department of Corrections v. Morales
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 1,758 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.”
145 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Just what alterations of procedure will be held to be of sufficient moment to transgress the constitutional prohibition cannot be embraced within a formula or stated in a general proposition'. The distinction is one of degree. But the constitutional provision was intended to secure substantial personal rights against arbitrary and oppressive legislation ... and not to limit the legislative control of remedies and modes of procedure which do not affect matters of substance....”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“limit the legislative control of remedies and modes of procedure which do not affect matters of substance”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.