3
Shared Docs
0
Same-Page
3 / 6
Mentions
d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past cond
Page: EFTA00020273 →imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past.'" Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time- barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mort
Page: EFTA00020276 →list As a general matter, "district courts have authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identity of government witnesses." United States v. Cannon, 528 F.2d 296, 300 (2d Cir. 1975). In deciding whether to order accelerated disclosure of a witness list, courts consider whether a defendant has m
Page: EFTA00020291 →d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past cond
Page: EFTA00022103 →imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past.'" Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time- barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mort
Page: EFTA00022106 →list As a general matter, "district courts have authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identity of government witnesses." United States v. Cannon, 528 F.2d 296, 300 (2d Cir. 1975). In deciding whether to order accelerated disclosure of a witness list, courts consider whether a defendant has m
Page: EFTA00022121 →d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past cond
Page: EFTA00029552 →imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past.'" Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time- barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mort
Page: EFTA00029555 →list As a general matter, "district courts have authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identity of government witnesses." United States v. Cannon, 528 F.2d 296, 300 (2d Cir. 1975). In deciding whether to order accelerated disclosure of a witness list, courts consider whether a defendant has m
Page: EFTA00029570 →Entities connected to both Cannon and Landgraf

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
United States
LOCATIONEmmy Taylor
PERSON
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATIONFBI
ORGANIZATION
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON
Reid Weingarten
PERSONUSI Film Products
ORGANIZATION
Julie K. Brown
PERSONCollins
PERSONWerner
PERSON
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON
Eric Holder
PERSON
Murray
PERSONSchneider
PERSON
Leahy
PERSON
Bridges
PERSONThompson
PERSONWalker
PERSONthe Southern District
LOCATION