EFTA00103709Set 9
2018-08-0925p6,523w
Kawashima v. Holder,
565 U.S. 478 (2012) 13
Landgraf v. USI Film Prod.,
511 U.S. 244 (1994) passim
Lattab v. Ashcroft,
384 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004) 7
Leocal ... presumption against
retroactive legislation" that is "deeply rooted in our jurisprudence." Landgraf v. USI Film Prod.,
511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994) (emphasis added). "Tillie principle that the legal effect
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00103709.pdf
EFTA00222842Set 9
2009-05-2220p7,114w
05/22/2009 Page 10 of 20
Similarly, in the companion case of Landgraf I. Usi Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 275, n. 28
(1994), the Court declined to retroactively apply substantive
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00222842.pdf
EFTA00222873Set 9
2009-06-1219p6,900w
06/12/2009 Page 10 of 19
Similarly, in the companion case of Landgraf v. Usi Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 275, n. 28
(1994), the Court declined to retroactively apply substantive
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00222873.pdf