Hills v. Iowa Department of Transportation & Motor Vehicle Division

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that license revocation upon conviction for drug possession was criminal punishment within the meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause because it was not pri marily related to traffic safety, but intended to enhance punishment for drug possession
• holding license revocation based on a controlled substance violation was a quasi-criminal punishment rather than a civil consequence
• holding ex post facto doctrine applies only to “cases criminal in nature”
• holding ex post facto doctrine applies only to \cases criminal in nature\
• where essential aim of amended sentencing statute is punitive, ex post facto principles prohibit its application to offenses committed before its effective date
• “civil penalties do not violate ex post facto clauses, even though their penalties may be retroactive and more burdensome”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).