Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 Cal. 3d 931 - In Re Ramirez

39 Cal. 3d 931 - In Re Ramirez’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 77 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2014 · most notably Toussaint v. McCarthy (1986), Ramirez v. California (1986)

12 federal appellate · 77 state decisions

4201985199020002010decided

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 Weaver v. Graham · Dobbert v. Florida · 33 Cal. 3d 176 - In Re Stanworth · Till v. New Mexico · Greenfield v. Scafati

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

  1. “[t]here is a critical difference between a diminution of the ordinary rewards for satisfactory performance of a prison sentence---the issue in Weaver--and an increase in sanctions for future misbehavior in prison--which is at issue here.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “substantially alter[ed] the consequences attached to a crime already completed.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Through this prohibition, the Framers sought to assure that legislative Acts give fair warning of their effect and permit individuals to rely on their meaning until explicitly changed. [Citations.] The ban also restricts governmental power by restraining arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation. [Citations.] [¶] In accord with these purposes, our decisions prescribe that two critical elements must be present for a criminal or penal law to be ex post facto : it must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.