Search for: "Landgraf v. USI Film Products" Results 1 - 20 of 27
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Aug 2016, 7:36 am by John Jascob
USI Film Products that a statute does not apply retroactively to conduct prior to the passage of the statute unless the statutory language “requires this result. [read post]
25 May 2009, 8:29 am
USI Film Products to support its conclusion that Congress did not intend the PDA to apply retroactively and therefore, the denial of service credit for time away from work due to pregnancy was lawful. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 9:01 am by N. Peter Rasmussen
USI Film Products, noted that jurisdictional statutes may be applied in suits arising before their enactment without raising concerns about retroactivity. [read post]
5 Oct 2016, 5:40 pm by John Bellinger
  If Congress granted the President waiver authority, in order to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in Landgraf v USI Film Products, Congress would need to be clear that the waiver applied retroactively to lawsuits that have already been filed, including the new suit filed earlier this week. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 5:00 am by Kirk Jenkins
USI Film Products in determining whether an amended statute can be applied retroactively. [read post]
11 Jan 2015, 9:06 pm by Kirk Jenkins
USI Film Products, which he described as a scholarly discussion of why statutes should ordinarily not apply retroactively. [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 8:30 pm
Relying on the Supreme Court's 1994 decision in Landgraf v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 5:00 am by Bexis
USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994). [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 3:02 pm by Amy Howe
USI Film Products, should not apply at all to foreign countries, because foreign countries “generally are not guided in their policymaking by changes to U.S. law. [read post]