Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 798 P.2d 436 - Aue v. Diesslin

Aue v. Diesslin’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Lustgarden v. Gunter (1992), Washington v. Commissioner of Correction (2008)

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions

280199020002010decided

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 · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Miller v. Florida · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · Evans v. Jeff D.

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

  1. “key test in determining whether the due process clause precludes the retrospective application of a judicial decision in a criminal case is whether the decision was sufficiently foreseeable so that the defendant had fair warning.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “any person sentenced for conviction of a sex offense”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is a fact of life, unlikely soon to be altered, that new laws are often not challenged and finally interpreted until a number of years go by.... We would be most reluctant to hold that the due process clause of the Constitution took away [a state’s] power to consider and apply its laws correctly in this situation. Only in rare circumstances have courts allowed the misconstructions of officials to stop the proper execution of state or federal law, and such cases have involved prejudice and harm beyond frustrated expectations.”
    1 later decision 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.