Curious. The ex post facto law might be an issue in the Carrol case. The statutes of limitations ran out, but the NY Legislature extended the statues of limitations just for a period of one year almost expressly to get her case go to trial. Otherwise her case was mute by statute. It could be considered an ex post facto law in that it applied to civil actions that occurred way in the past that would otherwise have been barred by the statute of limitations. To avoid the issue, the law could’ve extended that statues for actions committed now and in the future - but for actions committed in the past?
Or maybe he’s got other reasons for posting it. Or multiple reasons.
Exactly, probably the most obvious instance. Thanks