Retroactive Application Of Statutes

2,390 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 320 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Peabody Int'l Corp. v. Wylain, Inc.
  467 So. 2d 481· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-04-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial courts erred in denying motions to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction over Peabody.
• Bibby v. State
  465 So. 2d 670· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-03-27 ·cited 4×·via Retrospective Application
  Trial court erred in enhancing defendant's sentence under sentencing guidelines without stating reasons, relying on a rule not yet in effect; reversed and remanded for written explanation of departure.
• O'Malley v. State
  462 So. 2d 868· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-01-30 ·cited 4×
  Court reversed probation violation sentence imposed under sentencing guidelines that had not yet been adopted at the time of sentencing, holding that guideline amendments have no retroactive effect.
• Proulx v. Cnty. OF LEE & Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  466 So. 2d 253· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-01-16 ·cited 4×
• Andrews v. State
  462 So. 2d 18· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-10-05 ·cited 4×
• Union Boiler/FP&L Martin Wrap-Up & Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Walker
  461 So. 2d 117· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-08-14 ·cited 4×
  Two consolidated workers' compensation appeals addressing whether the 1983 amendment to Florida Statutes Section 440.20(13)(d), which limited advance lump-sum payments to $7,500 or 26 weeks of benefits in any 48-month period, applies retroactively to injuries occurring before its
• Dorothy M. Farish for Shirley F. Farish v. Courion Indus., Inc.
  722 F.2d 74· 4th Cir.· 1983-12-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Virginia statute abolishing the privity defense in product liability cases does not apply retroactively to sales made before its enactment. It also held that Otis Elevator Company was not the University's statutory employer and thus not immune from suit.
• Moreland v. State
  442 So. 2d 1002· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-11-16 ·cited 4×
• Econ. Dev. & Indus. Corp. v. United States
  720 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-28 ·cited 4×
  Maintenance of the action is barred by the sovereign immunity of the United States under the Quiet Title Act of 1972 due to the expiration of the twelve-year statute of limitations.
• United States v. McGEE
  714 F.2d 607· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-26 ·cited 4×·via Retroactive Legislation
  The court held that Ohio Rev.Code § 709.01, requiring Secretary of Defense approval for military base annexation, applied to the pending petition, and that potential friction between city and military officials justified the injunction.
• In re Ashe v. United States
  712 F.2d 864· 3d Cir.· 1983-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a judicial lien created by a cognovit note is not 'property' under Pennsylvania law, thus the Fifth Amendment's takings clause does not apply to its retrospective avoidance. However, a perfected judicial lien via a writ of execution does constitute property.
• In re Groves v. Household Fin. Co.
  707 F.2d 451· 10th Cir.· 1983-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bankruptcy statute permitting avoidance of nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money liens applies to 'gap period' liens.
• Webb v. Schweiker
  701 F.2d 81· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-07 ·cited 4×·via Retroactive Legislation
  The court held that the grandfather clause of the pension offset provision applies to Webb, exempting him from the offset.
• Scott v. State
  439 So. 2d 222· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-01-19 ·cited 4×
  Scott appealed his resentencing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 to correct an invalid split sentence probation arrangement. The court held that a defendant has a constitutional right to be present with counsel when being resentenced, despite language in Rule 3.850
• Kotval v. Gridley
  698 F.2d 344· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the six-year statute of limitations in effect at the time the cause of action accrued, rather than the later three-year statute, applied to the plaintiff's legal malpractice claim because the new statute was explicitly prospective.
• Neomi Letcavage v. John Biggie & Co.
  418 So. 2d 417· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-08-19 ·cited 4×
• Carpenter v. Leibson
  683 F.2d 169· 6th Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that due process prohibits the retroactive application of a new procedural rule (Kimbrough) that bars substantive review of convictions when petitioners complied with prior procedural requirements.
• Seniors United FOR Action v. RAY
  675 F.2d 186· 8th Cir.· 1982-04-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amended version of 42 C.F.R. § 447.205 applies, and under that version, the State's notice procedures were sufficient.
• Morgan v. State
  405 So. 2d 1005· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-10-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in excluding defense witnesses for a discovery violation and that the failure to instruct on the maximum penalty was not reversible error because the issue was not properly preserved.
• Crisp v. Mayabb
  668 F.2d 1127· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state's petition for rehearing should be denied because the petitioner made a bona fide effort to exhaust state remedies, and the state's subsequent arguments lacked merit.
• Prince v. State
  398 So. 2d 976· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-05-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that retroactive application of a statute retaining jurisdiction for parole review is impermissible if it substantively alters the appellant's situation to his disadvantage, as it would have an ex post facto effect.
• Imelda Contreras de Avilia v. Civiletti
  643 F.2d 471· 7th Cir.· 1981-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the State Department's policy of counting visas issued before the effective date of the 1976 amendments against the new per-country quota was reasonable and consistent with Congressional intent.
• In re Spell v. Spell
  650 F.2d 375· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge should apply the law in effect at the time of the ruling on dischargeability, not the law at the time of the bankruptcy discharge order.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Shell OIL Co.
  637 F.2d 683· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 1978 amendments to the ADEA should not be applied retroactively to invalidate retirements that were lawful under prior interpretations of the statute.
• Aldendifer v. Cont'l AIR Lines, Inc.
  650 F.2d 171· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 4×·via Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments
  The court held that the pilots' retirement plan, as applied and interpreted in light of Continental's uniform practices and Supreme Court precedent, constituted mandatory retirement at age 60, falling under an exception to the ADEA.
• R.P. v. State
  389 So. 2d 658· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-09-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Jacksonville Youth Development Center (JYDC) is a training school within the meaning of Section 39.112, Florida Statutes, and that the statute is constitutional. The court also held that a later amendment defining 'training school' does not apply retroacti
• Hunter v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  616 F.2d 267· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 4×·via Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments
  The court held that the amended 180-day filing period for Title VII charges applies to charges pending with the EEOC, even if filed more than 180 days before the amendment's enactment, as long as the EEOC had not yet formally acted on them.
• Austin v. United States
  611 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amendment to I.R.C. § 58(g)(2) was a clarification, not a retroactive application, and therefore did not violate due process. The court also held that the taxpayer's equal protection claim failed.
• VON Allmen v. State OF Conn. Teachers Ret. Bd. & W. Haven Bd. of Educ.
  613 F.2d 356· 2d Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 1974 amendments to the Veterans Reemployment Rights Act should be applied retroactively to grant plaintiff rights to purchase retirement credits for peacetime military service. The court also held that the plaintiff has standing to sue under Article I, Sec
• Wansor v. George Hantscho Co., Inc.
  595 F.2d 218· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that under Georgia law, a manufacturer has no duty to guard against injury from a patent peril, and the plaintiff's knowledge of the obvious danger bars recovery.
• Woodlawn Hosp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  596 F.2d 1330· 7th Cir.· 1979-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that strikers lawfully discharged before the effective date of the Health Care Amendments to the NLRA, for activity not protected by the Act, lost their employee status and were not entitled to reinstatement rights under the Act.
• Rude v. Fla. Elections Comm'n
  370 So. 2d 809· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-04-18 ·cited 4×
• Olen W. Meredith v. ST. Johns Cnty.
  365 So. 2d 740· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-10-31 ·cited 4×
  This case involves an appeal by an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant charged with first-degree murder. The attorney argued that the trial court's award of $3,500 in attorney's fees was unreasonable, despite the case's complexity and over 305 hours of work. The
• City OF N. BAY Vill. v. City OF Miami Beach
  365 So. 2d 389· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-10-17 ·cited 4×
  Municipal water customers appealed a summary judgment awarding Miami Beach damages for retroactive water rate increases, challenging whether Miami Beach had authority to set rates for a period before the Metro-Dade County Water & Sewer Board obtained supervisory jurisdiction. The
• Wood v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  580 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1978-08-02 ·cited 4×·via Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments
  The 180-day limitation period under Title VII, as amended in 1972, applies to charges pending with the EEOC on the date of enactment, even if the discriminatory act occurred more than 90 days prior to the amendment.
• Solomon Harris v. State
  358 So. 2d 858· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-05-16 ·cited 4×
  Appellant's conviction for both possession and delivery of heroin in a single transaction was error; only the higher offense (delivery) could be sentenced under pre-statute law, so the possession sentence was set aside.
• Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bryar
  349 So. 2d 1221· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-09-21 ·cited 4×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal held that a 1976 amendment prohibiting the "stacking" of uninsured motorist coverage applies to policies in effect before the amendment's effective date if the policy was renewed after that date. The court found the amendment to be a reasonabl
• Aumaitre v. Troyanos
  344 So. 2d 910· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-04-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the reduction in the age of majority did not relieve the appellant of his contractual obligations for child support as established in the original decree.
• Laurel v. United States
  547 F.2d 917· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 4×
  The 1972 Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to federal employees with pending administrative complaints, and these employees are entitled to a trial de novo.
• Hawley K. Challoner v. DAY & Zimmermann, Inc.
  546 F.2d 26· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Texas Wrongful Death Statutes, as amended by House Bill 974, should not be applied retroactively to cases already tried.
• Genaw v. Volkswagenwerk
  536 F.2d 1039· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Florida's long-arm statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 48.193, cannot be applied retrospectively to causes of action that accrued before its effective date.
• Creary v. In re the Est. of William Clifford Creary
  338 So. 2d 26· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-07-19 ·cited 4×
  Widow Mabel Creary claimed an inchoate right of dower in her deceased husband William's remainder interest in his father's homestead, which William had conveyed without Mabel's joinder. The court held Mabel had a valid dower right that was not barred by statutory limitations and
• Harris v. Clifford B. Miles, M.D.
  330 So. 2d 181· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court addresses whether the 1972 amendment to Florida's medical malpractice statute of limitations (reducing the period from four years to two years) applies retroactively to claims that arose before the amendment's effective date of July 1, 1972. The court holds that the new
• Hodgson v. Consol. Freightways, Inc.
  503 F.2d 797· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-19 ·cited 4×
  An employer may consider wage garnishments that occurred before the effective date of Title III of the Consumer Credit Protection Act when determining whether to discharge an employee under § 304.
• Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. The del Prado Mgmt. Co., Inc.
  298 So. 2d 544· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-08-13 ·cited 4×
  Florida appellate court affirmed that a condominium management contract executed before the effective date of § 711.13(4) could not be cancelled under that statute, as the management company's substantial rights vested before the statute's effective date.
• Fagundez v. Oakland Raiders Prof'l Football Club
  498 F.2d 1394· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1974-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs had no private cause of action for damages under the Economic Stabilization Act or Executive Order 11615, as neither expressly or implicitly created such a right, and the relevant amendment was not retroactive.
• Padgett v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Lake Worth
  297 So. 2d 101· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-06-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Count I stated a cause of action for recovery of interest under F.S. § 687.04, but Count II failed to state a cause of action for fraud and deceit.
• United States v. Cashion
  492 F.2d 42· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-08 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction, but the concurring opinion disagreed with the majority's reasoning regarding a specific regulation.
• Orfaly v. Jeffries
  290 So. 2d 575· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-02-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an oral request for a comparative negligence charge was sufficient to properly raise the issue, allowing for retrospective application of Hoffman v. Jones.
• Clarke D. Arick v. McTAGUE
  292 So. 2d 31· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-12-11 ·cited 4×
  In this guest passenger statute case, the appellate court reversed summary judgment for the defendant-driver where the trial court improperly applied the now-repealed guest passenger statute, which required proof of gross rather than ordinary negligence. The court held that the s