28 U.S.C. § 6

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

Any increase under this Act in a civil monetary penalty shall apply only to civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such increase, which are assessed after the date the increase takes effect.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2020–2024 · leading case: Garrow v. Tucson Clips LLC (D. Ariz. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Garrow v. Tucson Clips LLC (D. Ariz. 2023). “11(c), 28 U.S.C. § 6 1927, and A.R.S. § 12-349. Id.”

Young v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2024). “See 28 U.S.C. § 6 2254(e)(1). An "unreasonable application of clearly established law" exists if the state court 7 identified the correct governing legal principle from Supreme Court decisions but 8 unreasonably applied that principle to the facts of the case.”

Garcia v. Unknown Parties (D. Ariz. 2024). “" 28 U.S.C. § 6 1346(b); see also McMurray v.”

Kelsey Dru Gleghorn v. Jose Gastlo (C.D. Cal. 2020). “3 In light of the earlier dismissal of the 2012 Petition as untimely and the dismissal of the 2016 4 Petition as successive, the Court concludes that, with respect to Ground One, the instant Petition is 5 likewise successive.”

Lamb v. Smith & Wamsley PLLC (D. Ariz. 2024). “" 28 U.S.C. § 6 1915(e)(2)(B). In dismissing Lamb's original complaint, the Court directed the Clerk of 7 Court to mail a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) form 8 instead of a Complaint for a Civil Case form to Lamb.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.