State v. Huiett

How courts have described this case

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

• to fall within the ex post facto prohibition, a law must be retrospective so as to apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Gaster
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2002-05-20· cited 178×
• In Re the Treatment & Care of Luckabaugh
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2002-07-22· cited 110×
• Pierce v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-01-10· cited 75×
• State v. Wilson
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1993-07-19· cited 41×
• State v. Walls
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2002-01-14· cited 34×
• State v. Hudson
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1999-06-21· cited 27×
• State v. STAHLNECKER
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2010-03-01· cited 26×
• Barton v. South Carolina Department of Probation Parole & Pardon Services
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2013-07-03· cited 25×
• State v. Bryant
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2009-03-25· cited 6×
• Harris v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-12-07· cited 3×
• Michael Carvese Williams v. State of Alabama
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 2023-02-10
• Ex parte Billy Joe Carter, Jr. (In re: State of Alabama v. Billy Joe Carter, Jr.) (Shelby Circuit Court: DC-23-901353)
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 2024-12-20

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Weaver v. Graham
  Supreme Court· 1981-02-24· cited 2,482×
• Calder v. Bull
  Supreme Court· 1798-08-17· cited 1,860×
• Dobbert v. Florida
  Supreme Court· 1977-06-17· cited 1,651×
• Flemming v. Nestor
  Supreme Court· 1960-06-20· cited 1,508×
• Miller v. Florida
  Supreme Court· 1987-06-09· cited 1,316×
• State v. Huiett
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1978-08-09· cited 23×