Adler v. Menifee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ”[b]ecause there is no change in the plain meaning of [Section 3624(c) ], there is no violation in the ex post facto clause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Anthony R. Elwood v. Cole Jeter, Warden, Fci Forrest City United States Bureau of Prisons
  Eighth Circuit· 2004-10-18· cited 84×
• Colton v. Ashcroft
  E.D. Kentucky· 2004-01-15· cited 27×
• Cohn v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
  S.D. New York· 2004-02-10· cited 14×
• Skelskey v. Deboo
  D. Connecticut· 2004-08-16· cited 7×
• Serafini v. Dodrill
  M.D. Pennsylvania· 2004-02-23· cited 1×
• Anthony Elwood v. Cole Jeter
  Eighth Circuit· 2004-10-18

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Sandin v. Conner
  Supreme Court· 1995-06-19· cited 9,097×
• Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.
  Supreme Court· 1982-11-29· cited 2,910×
• Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond
  Supreme Court· 1990-08-13· cited 1,177×
• Iacaboni v. United States
  D. Massachusetts· 2003-03-20· cited 35×
• Monahan v. Winn
  D. Massachusetts· 2003-08-12· cited 30×
• Howard v. Ashcroft
  M.D. Louisiana· 2003-02-27· cited 19×
• Ashkenazi v. Attorney General of the United States
  District of Columbia· 2003-02-24· cited 19×
• Culter v. United States
  District of Columbia· 2003-01-27· cited 19×
• Byrd v. Moore
  W.D. North Carolina· 2003-03-06· cited 17×
• United States v. Serpa
  D. Massachusetts· 2003-03-12· cited 15×
• Tipton v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
  D. Maryland· 2003-05-15· cited 9×