Back to Network
11
Shared Docs
11
Same-Page
11 / 11
Mentions
Document Mentions (11 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (81)
Entities connected to both Lanfgraf and H.R. Conf
United States
LOCATION11 w/ Lanfgraf·24 w/ H.R.
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·24 w/ H.R.
the Southern District
LOCATION11 w/ Lanfgraf·23 w/ H.R.
Alberto Gonzales
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·22 w/ H.R.
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·19 w/ H.R.
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·19 w/ H.R.
Adriana Ross
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·18 w/ H.R.
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·18 w/ H.R.
RU
Russo
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·17 w/ H.R.
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION11 w/ Lanfgraf·17 w/ H.R.
FBI
ORGANIZATION11 w/ Lanfgraf·17 w/ H.R.
MA
Mann Act
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·17 w/ H.R.
OPR Report
ORGANIZATION11 w/ Lanfgraf·16 w/ H.R.
Acceptance Co.
ORGANIZATION11 w/ Lanfgraf·16 w/ H.R.
Vernon
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·16 w/ H.R.
Napolitano
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·16 w/ H.R.
Dodge
ORGANIZATION11 w/ Lanfgraf·16 w/ H.R.
Hernandez
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·16 w/ H.R.
Eric Holder
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·16 w/ H.R.
Bridges
PERSON11 w/ Lanfgraf·16 w/ H.R.