Back to Network
11
Shared Docs
11
Same-Page
11 / 11
Mentions
Document Mentions (11 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (81)
Entities connected to both Leahy and Lanfgraf
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON40 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
United States
LOCATION31 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON28 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON27 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION26 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Reid Weingarten
PERSON25 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
SC
Schneider
PERSON24 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON24 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Eric Holder
PERSON22 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Bridges
PERSON21 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Vernon
PERSON21 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
CO
Collins
PERSON21 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
WA
Walker
PERSON21 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
USI Film Products
ORGANIZATION20 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
TH
Thompson
PERSON20 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
JE
Jeffries
PERSON20 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
LA
Landgraf
PERSON20 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Hernandez
PERSON20 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Napolitano
PERSON20 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf
WE
Werner
PERSON20 w/ Leahy·11 w/ Lanfgraf