Epstein Secrets

erms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S., 125 S.

ted States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil

the are here-the "judicial inquiry is complete." Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1186 (11th C

ted States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil

at language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. EFTA00222831 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 E

of the amount of actual damages a plaintiff has suffered and proven. The new 3 In Landoraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

at language, and `[c]purls have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd . U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am Jur.2d Statutes §124 . Title 18 of the U.S.C. is entitled "Crimes and Crimin

uct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landgraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

hat language, and lijourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of Ethel provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1 187." See also Dodd U S , 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 of the is entitled "Crimes and Criminal Proc

uct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

at language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187.° See also Dodd v. U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. EFTA00175293 • Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13

of the amount of actual damages a plaintiff has suffered and proven. The new 3 In Landoraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

at language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 A m.J ur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 of the U.S.C. is entitled "Crimes and Crimin

duct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. 'Ile Court determine