Legal Opinion

W.P. v. Poritz

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided July 1, 1996No. Civil Action 96-97PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISSELL, District Judge.

In their Second Amended Complaint the plaintiffs in this class action assert that the New Jersey Registration and Community Notification Laws (hereinafter “Megan’s Law”) is unconstitutional as applied retroactively to the plaintiff class because it violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution (Count II), its double jeopardy clause (Count III) and the procedural due process protections of the fourteenth amendment (Count IV). Count I sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction pendente lite. That relief has previously been…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Nos. 96-5132, 96-5416Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
  2. Doe v. PatakiDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
  3. Russell v. GregoireCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
  4. State Ex Rel. Olivieri v. StateSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2001
  5. State v. MyersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1996

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API