Back to Network
11
Shared Docs
11
Same-Page
11 / 11
Mentions
Document Mentions (11 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—
age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance C
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—
age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance C
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—
age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance C
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—
age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance C
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—
age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance C
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—
age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance C
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—
age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance C
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—
age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance C
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—
age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance C
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—
age twenty-five, applied to past conduct. See United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit has observed that the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-26, 105 Stat. 123, illustrates language that requires a statute's application to past conduct. See Enter. Mortg. Acceptance C
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (81)
Entities connected to both Dodge and the Higher Education Technical Amendments of
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON98 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON52 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
United States
LOCATION47 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
FBI
ORGANIZATION37 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON34 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON31 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION30 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
CO
Collins
PERSON28 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
Eric Holder
PERSON25 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
TR
Tracy
PERSON24 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
SC
Schneider
PERSON23 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
the Southern District
LOCATION22 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
Reid Weingarten
PERSON22 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
Adriana Ross
PERSON22 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
RU
Russo
PERSON21 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
Bridges
PERSON20 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
TH
Thompson
PERSON20 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
Hernandez
PERSON20 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
Vernon
PERSON20 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the
AN
Annabi
PERSON19 w/ Dodge·11 w/ the