Stanley Chenault v. United States Postal Service

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994
• declining to apply new statute retroactively to revive a claim that would otherwise be stale under old statute of limitations
• newly enacted statute not applied retroactively to revive plaintiff s claim; to do so would alter substantive rights of defendant, increase liability
• “[W]e have recognized that a statute of limitations may not be applied retroactively to revive a claim that would otherwise be stale under the old scheme ....”
• ‘We have previously suggested that a rule extending a statute of limitations is procedural in nature.... ”
• \In this case the rights of the defendant would be altered and its liability increased because it would be forced to defend an action that was previously time-barred.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).