Retroactive property rulings
Lockhart v. Anick
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Sarah Lockhart asks the Supreme Court to review her claim that an Ohio court used an unforeseeable reading of state law to take away an established property interest after a completed transfer.
- Who it affects
- The denial ends Lockhart's request for Supreme Court review but does not resolve her due-process claim.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Her petition asks whether that retroactive change violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Lockhart says an Ohio court used an unforeseeable reading of state law to change the consequences of a completed property transfer.
Question presented
Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause permits a state court to retroactively extinguish an established property interest by applying an unforeseeable and unexpected interpretation of a state statute that changes the legal consequences of a completed transfer of personal property?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.