Aue v. Diesslin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding was foreseeable because it was based on the plain language of the statute, and parole board’s erroneous interpretation did not compel different result
• upholding the Thiret decision against a due process challenge on the ground that the new interpretation was foreseeable
• judicial decisions normally are applied retrospectively to conduct that occurred before the decision was rendered
• following the Calder definition of an ex post facto law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).