Robert Lewis Himes v. S. Frank Thompson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that because a defendant’s case was adjudicated prior to a decision that announced a rule he wanted applied in his case, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1
• finding changes to parole regulations to be “extreme” where they served to 3 “deny rerelease entirely”
• requiring a showing that “the regulations ... have been applied retroactively to the defendant” to establish an ex post facto violation
• applying an ex post facto analysis to amendments to parole regulations
• “[O]nly Supreme Court law is binding on the states. . . .”
• “We are bound by a state’s interpretation of its own laws.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).