Legal Opinion

United States v. One Big Six Wheel

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided December 3, 1997No. 97-CV-6500 (ARR)PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROSS, District Judge.

In a recent case involving the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the “AEDPA”), Pub.L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, Justice Souter remarked, “All we can say is that in a world of silk purses and pigs’ ears, the Act is not a silk purse of the art of statutory drafting.” Lindh v. Murphy, — U.S. -, -, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2068, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). This case demonstrates how true this statement rings, as the court is called upon to discern the impact of a miscellaneous provision of the AEDPA on preexisting section of the criminal code that deals with shipboard…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Lindh v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. United States v. LanierSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. United States v. BassSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Bouie v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Stardancer Casino, Inc. v. StewartSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
  2. United States v. One Big Six WheelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
  3. Niehoff v. Surgidev Corp.Kentucky Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Stardancer Casino, Inc. v. StewartSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API