Retroactive Application Of Statutes

2,388 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Pride v. Various John Does
  997 F.2d 712· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the officer's conduct was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and therefore, summary judgment based on qualified immunity was appropriate.
• Gulfside Distribs., Inc. v. Becco, Ltd.
  985 F.2d 513· 11th Cir.· 1993-03-05 ·cited 1×
  Gulfside Distributors challenged Becco's termination of its Beck's beer distributorship under Florida's beer distribution statute, but the court held that retroactive application of the statute to Gulfside's preexisting oral agreement with Old Dribeck would violate the Florida Co
• Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Bakker
  801 F. Supp. 706· S.D. Fla.· 1992-09-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the amended statute governing RTC removal applies and that the removal was timely.
• Desai v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc.
  792 F. Supp. 1275· M.D. Fla.· 1992-05-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 applies retroactively to pending cases, allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint to seek compensatory and punitive damages and a jury trial.
• State v. Kelley
  588 So. 2d 595· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-08-08 ·cited 1×
• Jacobs v. Pickands Mather & Co.
  933 F.2d 652· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that severance pay should include years of service with a former employer, Reserve Mining Company, and that the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch standard applies retroactively. The court also affirmed the district court's finding that two individuals were emplo
• Torres v. State
  566 So. 2d 843· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-08-28 ·cited 1×
  A defendant who has previously obtained an expungement within the last ten years is ineligible for further expungement, even if the trial court believes extraordinary circumstances exist.
• Elortegui v. United States
  743 F. Supp. 828· S.D. Fla.· 1990-06-25 ·cited 1×
  Ricardo Elortegui sought to vacate his 1986 drug conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on United States v. Piccinonna, a 1989 Eleventh Circuit decision that reversed the prior per se rule against polygraph evidence and permitted limited admission of such evidence at trial. The
• Whitfield v. State
  561 So. 2d 22· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-05-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the amended habitual offender statute cannot be retroactively applied to offenses committed before its effective date.
• State v. Etlinger
  556 So. 2d 1118· Fla.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that double jeopardy claims based on Carawan cannot be retroactively applied on a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850.
• United States v. Crutchfield
  D.D.C.· 1990-01-26 ·cited 1×
  The Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) does not apply retroactively to individuals committed under the D.C. Code prior to the IDRA's enactment, and therefore the D.C. Code's release provisions govern such petitions.
• Seay v. State
  550 So. 2d 34· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-08-16 ·cited 1×
• United States v. Wastecontrol of Fla., Inc.
  730 F. Supp. 401· M.D. Fla.· 1989-07-05 ·cited 1×
  The court held that CERCLA § 113(j) applies retroactively to pending cases and limits judicial review of EPA response actions to the administrative record, requiring an arbitrary and capricious standard.
• Manuel v. EIG Cutlery, Inc.
  515 So. 2d 980· Fla.· 1987-12-03 ·cited 1×
• Purty v. McDonnell douglas Corp.
  515 So. 2d 983· Fla.· 1987-12-03 ·cited 1×
• Fairley v. Hon. Bill Allain
  817 F.2d 306· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the one-year statute of limitations, as applied in Gates v. Spinks, applies retroactively to this § 1983 action.
• Osborne v. Elizabeth Massey Inv. Corp.
  467 So. 2d 1095· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-05-01 ·cited 1×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing a marine insurer from a suit, holding that Florida's common law rule permitting direct joinder of liability insurers applies to marine insurance policies, not just motor vehicle case
• Desmond J. Tutson v. State
  453 So. 2d 497· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-07-31 ·cited 1×
• In re The Petition of Frank Ezell for an Order Setting Aside or Modifying Civil Investigative Demand. Frank Ezell v. Smith
  446 So. 2d 253· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-03-08 ·cited 1×
  Appellant Ezell challenged the constitutionality of Florida Statute section 542.28, which authorizes the Attorney General to issue civil investigative demands (CIDs) in antitrust investigations, arguing it infringes on the Florida Supreme Court's exclusive rule-making power. The
• Harris v. General Accident
  442 So. 2d 294· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-11-30 ·cited 1×
• Orpheus Invs., S.A. v. Ryegon Invs., Inc.
  447 So. 2d 257· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-10-18 ·cited 1×
  Orpheus Investments sought rescission of a condominium purchase contract under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, claiming the sellers failed to comply with disclosure requirements. The trial court dismissed the complaint as time-barred under the two-year statute of l
• McAFEE v. Kirkland
  362 So. 2d 695· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-09-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a claim for parental mental pain and suffering in a wrongful death action is precluded if the accident occurred before the effective date of the statutory amendment allowing such claims, even if the suit was filed after the amendment.
• Coney v. Reserve Ins. Co. & State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  358 So. 2d 261· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-05-09 ·cited 1×
  Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment for uninsured motorist coverage under automobile insurance policies after being injured by an underinsured motorist. The court affirmed the insurers' judgment on the pleadings, holding that the statute expanding uninsured motorist coverage t
• Avila S. Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Kappa Corp.
  347 So. 2d 599· Fla.· 1977-03-31 ·cited 1×
  Avila South Condominium Association sued developers over an allegedly unfair recreational lease, challenging various counts and class action authority. The Florida Supreme Court held that fiduciaries in control of condominium associations may be liable for undisclosed self-dealin
• Griffis v. J. C. Penny Co., Inc.
  333 So. 2d 503· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-06-17 ·cited 1×
  This interlocutory appeal addresses whether service of process on a nonresident corporate defendant in a products liability case should be governed by Florida Statute Section 48.182 or Section 48.193. The court held that Section 48.182 applies because the alleged negligent acts o
• Dep't OF Bus. Reg. v. Stein
  326 So. 2d 205· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-02-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the statute requiring interest on security deposits does not apply retroactively to leases executed before its effective date, and the administrative agency lacked statutory authority to fine or revoke the license.
• Fields v. Wilensky
  247 So. 2d 477· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-04-02 ·cited 1×
  Fields appealed a judgment requiring him to pay principal on a usurious promissory note executed in 1964 as a guarantor. The trial court initially forfeited both principal and interest under the 1964 usury statute, but then permitted recovery of principal only under a 1965 statut
• Myers v. H. L. Rust Co.
  D.D.C.· 1943-02-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the District of Columbia Emergency Rent Act controlled the case, preventing the landlord from recovering possession of the apartment.
• Maricopa Cnty. v. Valley Nat. Bank of Phœnix
  130 F.2d 356· 9th Cir.· 1942-08-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the federal provision exempting RFC-owned preferred stock from state taxation was constitutional and applied retroactively, even to taxes levied and assessed before its enactment.
• Fla. Dep't of Law Enf't v. Garcia
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-09-02
  Proceedings concerning removal from the sexual offender registry are civil in nature, not criminal, and therefore subject to appellate review under the civil appellate rules. FDLE has standing to challenge an order directing removal from the registry because section 943.0436(3) e
• St. Pierre v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co.
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2026-05-29
  The notice requirement in section 627.70152, Florida Statutes, does not apply retroactively to homeowner's insurance policies issued before the statute's enactment.
• Priest v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co.
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2026-05-20
  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
• Pantzer v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-04-29
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct appeal.
• Florida v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-04-22
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
• Galarraga v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-03-11
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases that were final before the decision.
• Ferris Vaughner v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-03-04
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
• Rutledge
  Del.· 2026-02-27
  The Delaware Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Senate Bill 21 (SB 21), which amended the Delaware General Corporation Law to establish safe harbor procedures for controlling stockholder transactions. The Court rejected arguments that the amendments violated Article IV
• Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jada Griffin
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-02-25
  In this property insurance dispute, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a final judgment for the insured on the basis that the insured failed to comply with Florida Statute section 627.70152's pre-suit notice requirement, which applies retroactively to policies predating
• Colson v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-02-25
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
• Lee v. Dixon v. State of Fla.
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-02-18
  A change of law does not apply retroactively even if established by a controlling Supreme Court decision.
• Pickard v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-02-11
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively.
• Milian v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-02-11
  A change in law announced in Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases that became final before the decision was issued.
• Washington v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-01-07
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases that were final when decided.
• State of Del. State of Del.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-01-02
  McCasline sought sentence modification after pleading guilty to Drug Dealing Tier 2, arguing that a 2019 amendment to Delaware drug statutes should have resulted in a lower classification and sentence. The court denied the motion on three independent grounds: the sentence was not
• Stone v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-12-10
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases that were final when the decision was rendered.
• Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs. v. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Inst. Found., Inc.
  Fla.· 2025-12-04
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal in part, holding that a 2018 statute and Board of Governors regulation do not unconstitutionally impair the Foundation's memorandum of understanding with Florida Atlantic University. Although the statute grant
• Oviedo v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-12-03
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
• Edgardo Acosta v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-12-03
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
• Wilkes v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-11-19
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review.
• Quincy Jefferson v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-11-05
  A change in law established by Erlinger v. United States does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct appeal.