42 U.S.C. § 16921

Transferred

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

[transferred]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2007–2016 · leading case: State v. Petersen-Beard, 377 P.3d 1127 (Kan. 2016).
State v. Petersen-Beard, 377 P.3d 1127 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 16921 (b)(2) (2012). In short, SORNA goes further than the Alaska scheme at issue in Smith and further than KORA as to affirmative notification of statutorily specified groups.”
Standley v. Town of Woodfin, 650 S.E.2d 618 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 16921 (b) (Supp.2007). Compliance may, however, be excused if the United States Attorney General determines that certain provisions would place the state in violation of its own constitution, as determined by a ruling of the state's highest court.”
Doe v. Thompson, 373 P.3d 750 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 16921 (b)(2) (2012). In short, SORNA goes further than the Alaska scheme at issue in Smith and further than KORA as to affirmative notification of statutorily specified groups.”
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.