Holguin v. Raines’s Empirical Analysis
695 F.2d 372 · 1982
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Weaver v. Graham · Marks v. United States · Dobbert v. Florida · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Beazell v. State of Ohio Chatfield
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he principle of fair warning implicit in the ex post facto prohibition requires that judicial decisions interpreting existing law must have been foreseeable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“distinguished between a change in an administrative interpretation of state law made by the agency itself, ... and a court decision authoritatively construing state law. In the latter case, we noted, the ex post facto clause by its own terms does not apply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fisher v. Johnson“Absent a court pronouncement on the matter, the interpretation of the relationship between the statutes placed upon them by the administrative agency charged with their enforcement has the force and effect of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Fisher v. Johnson
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.