OXBORROW

v.

EIKENBERRY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Aponte v. Gomez, 993 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1993)
  …r to the construction set forth in Pieters unless we find that its interpretation is “untenable or amounts to a subterfuge to avoid federal review of a constitutional violation.” Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F. 2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942, 110 S.Ct. 344, 107 L.Ed.2d 332 (1989). The Pieters statutory construction is neither untenable nor a subterfuge. In fact, far from being untenable, the result reached is entirely logical. If the sentencing statutes were construed so as to impose t…
• Davis v. State OF Neb., 958 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1992)
  …0 L.Ed.2d 183 (1976). As a general rule, it violates due process to retroactively apply an unforeseeable construction of a state law, even though the construction is legitimate. Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F. 2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942, 110 S.Ct. 344, 107 L.Ed.2d 332 (1989); see also Helton, 930 F. 2d at 1044-45. [A]n unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law, such as Art. I, § 10, of the Constitu…
• Powell v. Ducharme, 998 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1993)
  …nterpretations of Washington law are binding on this court unless we determine such interpretations to be untenable, or a veiled attempt to avoid review of federal questions. See Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F. 2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942, 110 S.Ct. 344, 107 L.Ed.2d 332 (1989). However, whether a retrospective state criminal statute ameliorates or worsens conditions imposed by its predecessor is a federal question. Weaver, 450 U.S. at 33, 101 S.Ct. at 966. In Weaver, the Supreme Cou…