Montana Rail Link, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting plaintiff’s argument that all retroactive legislation must have a “short and limited period” of retroactivity, stating “in Carlton the Court did not establish a specific time frame for the validity of retroactive legislation”
• rejecting plaintiffs argument that all retroactive legislation must have a “short and limited period” of retroactivity, stating “in Carlton the Court did not establish a specific time frame for the validity of retroactive legislation”
• stating, in reference to this discussion in Carlton, “the real issue identified by the Court and addressed in that discussion is whether the retroactive effect is supported by a legitimate purpose and furthered by rational means”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).