Case Citator › Beazell v. Ohio

Beazell v. Ohio

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
269 U.S. 167
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
44 of 44
Citing cases (total)
44
Treatment dates
2003
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. The Supreme Court criticized Beazell v. Ohio's method of analysis; all 44 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. In Stogner v. California, the Court said later precedent made Beazell vulnerable to methodological criticism.
More on how this was screened

Other courts continued to apply its distinction between procedural changes and retroactive changes that impair a substantial right.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

44 later cases cite Beazell v. Ohio; 44 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Beazell v. Ohio?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Supreme Court said Beazell's method of ex post facto analysis was vulnerable to criticism under its later precedents.

    Stogner v. California · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    After all, Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U. S. 167 (1925), an opinion relied on by the dissent, post, at 640, is itself vulnerable to criticism that its “method of analysis is foreclosed by this Court’s precedents,” post, at 637. See Collins, 497 U. S., at 45-46.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Beazell v. Ohio and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace