| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Vernon
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal ruling | The Second Circuit held in *Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist.* that a new statute sho... | N/A | View |
This legal document page discusses the second step of the Landgraf analysis, a legal test to determine if a statute can be applied retroactively. It cites Supreme Court precedent from the Landgraf case to explain that a statute is impermissibly retroactive if it impairs rights, increases liability, or imposes new duties for past conduct, but clarifies that changes to procedural rules are generally not considered retroactive. The document also references the case of Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist. as an example of the court considering a new statute of limitations.
This document is page 'xi' of a legal filing, specifically Document 79 in Case 22-1426, filed on June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and U.S. Code statutes that are cited within the larger document, along with the corresponding page numbers for each reference.
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 16, 2021, analyzes the permissibility of applying statutes of limitation retroactively. It discusses several Second Circuit precedents, distinguishing between impermissibly reviving time-barred claims (*In re Enterprise Mortgage*) and permissibly altering filing periods for live claims (*Vernon*). The text also references an opinion by Judge Learned Hand on the fairness of extending an active criminal statute of limitations.
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues for the retroactive application of a 2003 amendment to Section 3283, a statute of limitations. It contends that applying the amendment to pre-enactment conduct satisfies the Supreme Court's two-step 'Landgraf' analysis, as it does not impair the rights or increase the liability of the defendant, Maxwell. The document asserts that the amendment merely preserves the status quo rather than attaching new legal consequences.
This document is page xxiv of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations with corresponding page numbers where they are referenced within the larger document. The majority of the cases listed involve the United States as a party against various individuals and one corporation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity