shaped the ex post facto provision of the constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States.” We further noted that virtually identical standards have applied to determining whether an ex post facto violation has occurred pursuant to the Pennsylvania and United States Constitution. Id. Accordingly, in Young, where we found no violation of the ex post facto clause of the federal constitution, we declined to depart from our analysis in resolving Young’s state constitutional claim. As aptly noted by the lower court and discussed above, since our decision in Young, “substantial developments have occurred in federal ex post facto jurisprudence, which may impact the harmony between the [United States] and Pennsylvania constitutions.” Gaffney, 702 A.2d at 569, citing Artway, 81 F.3d at 1254 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ursery (civil forfeitures do
holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law recognizing the confused state of federal law regarding punishment holding that federal law regarding costs applies rather than more generously interpreted state law holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law