Badgley v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining the ex post facto clause applies only to the legislative branch, so retroactive application of a punitive law by a court is actually a due process violation
• deficient performance where reasonably adequate research would have prevented the possibility of conviction based on acts predating the relevant statute’s effective date
• \This court may raise an issue sua sponte and rest its decision on that issue.\
• “While ordinarily we will decide a case only on the basis of issues raised in the petition for review and the answer, RAP 13.7(b
• “Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may not request that instructions be given to the jury and then complain upon appeal that the instructions are constitutionally infirm.” (emphasis added)
• “To fall within the ex post facto prohibition, a law must be retrospective—that is ‘it must apply to events occurring before its enactment’ . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).