Presumption Against Retroactivity

35 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Arrow AIR, Inc. v. Walsh
  645 So. 2d 422· Fla.· 1994-11-17 ·cited 118×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the private sector Whistle-Blower's Act, which became effective June 7, 1991, does not apply retroactively to a termination that occurred on May 15, 1989, absent clear legislative intent to the contrary. The Court rejected the Third District Co
• Fla. Hosp. Waterman, Inc. v. Buster
  984 So. 2d 478· Fla.· 2008-03-06 ·cited 93×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Amendment 7 (the Patients' Right to Know About Adverse Medical Incidents), a constitutional provision approved by voters in 2004, is self-executing and retroactively applies to medical records created before its effective date. The Court also i
• Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Devon Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc.
  67 So. 3d 187· Fla.· 2011-06-30 ·cited 84×
  FIGA sought review of the Fourth District's decision that a 2005 amendment to Florida's insurance code applied retroactively to a 2004 insurance policy, barring FIGA from compelling appraisal of hurricane damage claims. The Florida Supreme Court held that the Fourth District misa
• Georgianna Fray v. The Omaha World Herald Co.
  960 F.2d 1370· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 should not apply retroactively to pending cases, and that the job Fray applied for did not create a new and distinct relationship under Patterson.
• Gersman v. Grp. Health Ass'n, Inc.
  975 F.2d 886· D.C. Cir.· 1992-09-15 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 does not apply retroactively to conduct that occurred before its enactment, and therefore, the prior ruling based on Patterson v. McClean Credit Union stands.
• Simmons v. A.L. Lockhart
  931 F.2d 1226· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988's attorneys' fee provisions do not apply retroactively, and that reimbursement for law clerks and paralegals is granted, while reimbursement for other lawyers is granted based on reasonableness.
• Wagner Seed Co., Inc. v. Bush
  946 F.2d 918· D.C. Cir.· 1991-10-15 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the lower court's decision, arguing that the EPA is not entitled to Chevron deference in its interpretation of CERCLA § 106(b)(2) and that the statutory text favors the petitioner's reading.
• Transcon. & W. Air, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  169 F.2d 893· D.C. Cir.· 1948-08-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Civil Aeronautics Board cannot retroactively fix mail rates for a period prior to the institution of proceedings, as the statute contemplates prospective rate-setting.
• Silverlight v. Huggins
  488 F.2d 107· 3d Cir.· 1973-11-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the 1971 Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act has retroactive application to causes of action accruing before its enactment, but only within two years prior to the Act's effective date.
• Levine v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for First Am. Bank & Tr.
  651 So. 2d 134· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-02-15 ·cited 6×
  The Levines appealed a judgment allowing the FDIC to repudiate a 1987 deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure agreement under FIRREA's repudiation provision. The court reversed, holding that FIRREA's repudiation power cannot be applied retroactively to contracts entered before the statute's
• United States v. Union Planters Nat. Bank & Tr. Co.
  175 F.2d 684· 5th Cir.· 1949-06-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Act of March 6, 1946, bars claims of the United States arising from forged endorsements on government checks paid more than six years prior to its enactment, even if notice was given before the act but not within the statutory period.
• Orrego v. 833 W. Buena Joint Venture
  943 F.2d 730· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 (ELIHPA) and its subsequent amendment, the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (LIHPRHA), do not apply retroactively to void a mortgage prepayment made before the Pres
• Diaz v. Shallbetter
  984 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amended version of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) should be applied retroactively to cases pending on appeal, as indicated by the Supreme Court's order.
• Doe v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  783 F. Supp. 1379· S.D. Fla.· 1992-01-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 does not apply retroactively to the plaintiff's claims, and therefore, the motion to amend the complaint to add claims under the 1991 Act is denied in part.
• In re Eastport Assocs. v. City OF LOS Angeles
  935 F.2d 1071· 9th Cir.· 1991-06-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 1988 amendment to California Government Code § 66452.6 does not apply retroactively to revive expired development entitlements, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the City's motion to abstain.
• United States Tr. Region 21 v. Bast Amron LLP
  22 F.4th 1291· 11th Cir.· 2022-01-14 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the 2017 Bankruptcy Judgeship Act properly applied increased quarterly bankruptcy fees to a pending chapter 11 case based on disbursements made after the effective date, did not violate due process, did not implicate the Tax Uniformity Clause becaus
• Tefel v. Reno
  972 F. Supp. 608· S.D. Fla.· 1997-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to hear the case, granted provisional class certification, and issued a temporary restraining order, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.
• Nestor Omar Barreiro v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  989 F.2d 62· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the amendment barring waivers for aggravated felonies applies retroactively to petitioner's conviction, even though most of his sentence was served before the amendment's enactment.
• Priest v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co.
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2026-05-20 ·cited 1×
  Section 627.70152, which requires a pre-suit notice of intent to litigate as a condition precedent to filing suit under a property insurance policy, does not apply retroactively to insurance policies issued before the statute's July 1, 2021 effective date because the statute cont
• Derick Rosenwald v. Lars Severson
  282 So. 3d 120· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-10-23 ·cited 1×
  A change in criminal sentencing law does not apply retroactively to crimes committed before the law's effective date unless the Legislature expressly declares or intends retroactive application.
• Pauline Walters for the Estate of Enid May Townsend v. Agency for Health Care Admin.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-10-07
  The 2021 amendment to section 719.103(25), Florida Statutes, which declares that an interest in a cooperative unit is an interest in real property, applies prospectively only and does not apply retroactively to the date of the decedent's death in 2017.
• Cont'l Gen. Ins. Co. v. Gardina
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-27
  The court held that the incontestability statute did not apply retroactively and that the plaintiff's fraud claims were not barred by Florida's independent tort rule because the alleged fraud was not inextricably intertwined with the contract's performance.
• Sulzer v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla.
  Fla. 6th DCA· 2024-01-08
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court's dismissal of an insurance coverage lawsuit for failure to comply with Section 627.70152's pre-suit notice requirement. The court held that the 2021 statute does not apply retroactively to claims arising from policies and losses t
• Rendon v. U.S. Attorney General
  965 F.3d 1198· 11th Cir.· 2020-07-14
  The court held that applying the stop-time rule to a pre-IIRIRA conviction, where the conviction did not immediately render the alien deportable, has an impermissibly retroactive effect.
• Est. OF Barbara L. Reynolds v. Martin
  994 F.2d 690· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-01
• Haugen v. Total Petroleum, Inc.
  971 F.2d 124· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-27
  The court held that the Minnesota Supreme Court would not apply the new, longer statute of limitations retroactively to disability discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.