Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments

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

• Eastland v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
  553 F.2d 364· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the thirty-day filing period for federal employees under Title VII is jurisdictional and not extended by agency failure to provide notice of the right to sue, but that federal employees are entitled to a trial de novo and may maintain class actions.
• Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc.
  805 F.2d 1074· 1st Cir.· 1986-11-14 ·cited 61×
  A party seeking to recover response costs under CERCLA § 107 does not need to comply with the 60-day notice period in § 112(a), and the 1984 amendment to RCRA § 7002, eliminating the notice requirement for hazardous waste violations, applies retroactively.
• Abramson v. Univ. OF Haw.
  594 F.2d 202· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-28 ·cited 59×
  The court held that summary judgment on Title VII claims was improper because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the final date of tenure denial and retaliation claims are actionable if occurring after the 1972 amendments. The court affirmed the dismissal of the eq
• Sanders v. City OF Orlando
  997 So. 2d 1089· Fla.· 2008-09-25 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the 2001 amendment to section 440.20(11)(c) of the Workers' Compensation Act did not divest Judges of Compensation Claims (JCCs) of jurisdiction to vacate or set aside settlement agreements for represented claimants. The amendment eliminated th
• Hastings v. Earth Satellite Corp. & Cont'l Cas. Co.
  628 F.2d 85· D.C. Cir.· 1980-03-19 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the repeal of the $24,000 permanent-partial disability ceiling applies retroactively, and that the calculation of permanent-total disability benefits must reflect the claimant's progressive increase in earning capacity, not a mechanical average.
• Timothy D. O'Leary, M.D. v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n
  757 So. 2d 624· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-05-19 ·cited 37×
  This case addresses whether an administrative law judge has jurisdiction to determine whether a physician satisfied notice requirements under Florida's Birth-Related Injury Compensation Plan (NICA). The court held that the 1998 legislative amendments granted administrative law ju
• Timothy v. Summers
  747 So. 2d 987· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-11-19 ·cited 31×
  In this post-conviction appeal, the court held that Timothy Summers was illegally sentenced as an habitual offender for a second-degree murder conviction committed in January 1994, because the habitual offender statute did not apply to life felonies until an October 1995 amendmen
• United States v. Kimberlin
  776 F.2d 1344· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant's sentence reduction motion because it was filed outside the 120-day time limit of the applicable version of Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b).
• ACE Disposal & Fla. Air Condition Contractors v. Holley
  668 So. 2d 645· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-02-20 ·cited 28×
  A 1993 amendment to section 440.15(1)(f)2.b., Florida Statutes, requiring claimants receiving permanent total disability benefits to apply for and cooperate with social security disability benefits is procedural, not substantive, and therefore applies retroactively to injuries oc
• ST. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Brock
  769 F.2d 37· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-17 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor's failure to issue a final determination within 120 days does not bar the government from recovering misused CETA funds, and that the Secretary had authority under the 1973 CETA to order direct repayment.
• Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Bernard
  140 So. 3d 1023· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-05-14 ·cited 25×
  FIGA appeals a summary judgment ordering it to pay approximately $237,000 directly to Bernard for sinkhole loss. The court reverses, holding that FIGA's obligations under the FIGA Act are governed by the statutory definition of "covered claim" in effect when the insurer was adjud
• Shep Harris, Jr. v. Zenoria T. McKINNEY
  20 So. 3d 400· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-10-09 ·cited 23×
  The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a child support order requiring retroactive payments to the child's birth date, but reversed the awards of attorney's fees and prejudgment interest on the retroactive support, holding that retroactive child support constitutes
• Putt v. United States
  392 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-16 ·cited 23×
• Walker v. The JIM Dandy Co.
  638 F.2d 1330· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Walker's Title VII claim was timely filed due to the retroactive application of the 1972 amendments, and that the class certification issue for Rhoades and Lowery needed further consideration.
• State v. Knowles
  388 So. 2d 1045· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-07-11 ·cited 22×
  This case clarifies Florida's sovereign immunity statute, specifically the monetary limitations on tort claims against the state and the personal liability of state employees. The court held that the $50,000 per-person limit does not apply to separate claims by different individu
• Nat'l Treas. Emps. Union v. Campbell
  589 F.2d 669· D.C. Cir.· 1978-11-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing claims for lack of jurisdiction and that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, specifically 5 U.S.C. § 8912, provides jurisdiction for suits challenging rates negotiated under the Act. It also held that summary judgm
• Valdes v. State
  320 So. 3d 235· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-04-14 ·cited 21×
  A trial court's error in applying the incorrect burden of proof at a pretrial Stand Your Ground hearing is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when the defendant is subsequently convicted at trial by jury verdict, because the state's trial burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonab
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Waln
  395 So. 2d 1211· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-03-18 ·cited 20×
  This case addresses two statutory interpretation questions under Florida's Uninsured Motorist coverage statute: whether a policy remains a 'renewal' when automobiles are substituted, and whether future workers' compensation benefits can be offset against uninsured motorist covera
• Smart v. Porter Paint Co.
  630 F.2d 490· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the employer's motion for summary judgment was improperly granted because the employer failed to provide evidence of the purpose behind the post-ADEA amendment to its retirement plan, which is required to demonstrate the plan was not a subterfuge.
• Catalano v. State
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-07-18 ·cited 18×
  The 2017 amendment to Florida's Stand Your Ground law applies retroactively to cases pending when the amendment was enacted, requiring a new immunity hearing under the amended burden of proof.
• Mivan (Florida), Inc. v. Metric Constructors, Inc.
  857 So. 2d 901· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-08-29 ·cited 18×
  Mivan appeals summary judgment in favor of Metric Constructors on Metric's defense that Mivan lacked a valid contractor's license under Florida law. The court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Mivan obtained and maintained proper licensing and wh
• Buckle v. State
  528 So. 2d 1285· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-07-27 ·cited 18×
  Scott Buckle appeals his sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation as a youthful offender under Florida's Youthful Offender Act. The appellate court reverses the seven-year sentence, holding that the 1985 amendment to section 958.14 limits youthful offenders to a maximum
• Stoller v. Marsh
  682 F.2d 971· D.C. Cir.· 1982-06-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper on the plaintiff's 1972 claim because reliance on discriminatory evaluations, even if prepared by supervisors unaware of the animus, violates Title VII unless the employee had a reasonable opportunity to inspect and correct the fi
• Huntley v. Dep't OF Health
  550 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1977-04-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the employee met the burden of proving he would have been promoted but for the racial discrimination, entitling him to back pay.
• State v. Stabile
  443 So. 2d 398· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-01-04 ·cited 17×
  The State of Florida appealed the dismissal of antitrust charges against Dominic Stabile and Lucas Mesa. The trial court dismissed the charges twice—first because the state failed to comply with new statutory procedures enacted after charging, and second based on law of the case
• Lutz v. State
  664 So. 2d 1060· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-11-29 ·cited 16×
  John Lutz appeals his conviction and adult sentence for burglary and grand theft committed as a minor. The court affirms because the effective date of an amended statute eliminated the former requirement for contemporaneous written findings supporting adult sanctions, and Lutz's
• Easley v. Empire Inc. & Empiregas
  757 F.2d 923· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-20 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the judgments, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding the directed verdict on the service letter issue, the applicability of a statutory amendment to punitive damages, the sufficiency of evidence for sex discrimination, or the excessiveness of
• Dortha Allen GUY v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.
  525 F.2d 124· 6th Cir.· 1975-10-24 ·cited 16×
  The court did not directly rule on the retroactivity of the 1972 amendment but noted the issue was not presented to the District Court.
• Eldred L. Tuggle and Catherine Tuggle v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.
  220 So. 2d 355· Fla.· 1969-03-05 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether attorney's fees for appellate services could be awarded in an insurance dispute. The Court held that a 1967 statute authorizing appellate attorney's fees was not retroactive and therefore could not apply to appellate proceedings initiat
• Elery Erigen Brown v. Celebrezze
  367 F.2d 455· 4th Cir.· 1966-09-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the case must be remanded to the Secretary for reconsideration under the new disability standards enacted by the 1965 amendments to the Social Security Act.
• State v. Battle
  661 So. 2d 38· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-04-11 ·cited 14×
  The State appeals a sentencing decision where the trial court failed to impose mandatory minimum sentences for cocaine sales within 1,000 feet of a school. The court reverses and remands, holding that the applicable statute is the one in effect when the crime was committed, not a
• Kirby Bruce Marshall v. TRW, Inc.
  900 F.2d 1517· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's state law claim for retaliatory discharge was not pre-empted by federal labor law and that there was insufficient evidence of workplace hostility to support an award of future damages in lieu of reinstatement.
• Cal. Tribal Chairman's Ass'n v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  730 F.2d 1289· 9th Cir.· 1984-04-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Department of Labor has the authority under the 1973 CETA Act to recover misspent grant funds from a recipient's general funds.
• United States ex rel. Frank Sacco v. Kenton
  386 F.2d 143· 2d Cir.· 1967-11-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the 1966 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3568 was not retroactive and that the sentencing judge had properly considered pre-sentence credit.
• Bryant Commander v. State
  246 So. 3d 1303· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-07-09 ·cited 12×
  Bryant Commander petitioned for a writ of prohibition challenging the trial court's denial of his Stand Your Ground immunity motion. The court granted the petition after the state conceded error in imposing the burden of proof on the defendant rather than on the prosecution, and
• Weckerle v. State
  626 So. 2d 1038· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-11-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a sentence must be reversed and remanded for resentencing because points for victim injury were improperly scored based on subsequent case law, and the lack of an objection at sentencing does not bar post-judgment relief.
• Leake v. Long Island Jewish Med. Ctr.
  869 F.2d 130· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the 1988 amendments to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act apply retroactively to pending cases, making the defendant subject to its provisions.
• Farese v. Story
  823 F.2d 975· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act's amendments do not apply retroactively to the petitioner's sentence and that the Act's provisions for parole determination are not yet effective for him.
• United States v. Harrol Jerry Holley
  818 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's conviction and sentence for federal firearms violations were valid, as the relevant statutory amendment was not retroactive and did not apply to his prior conduct.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Mobile v. Alton A. Norris
  701 F.2d 902· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 12×
  The trustee's objection to the homestead exemption amount was sufficient, and the debtors are limited to the $2,000 exemption available under Alabama law at the time their debts were incurred.
• Bray v. Dir., Off. OF Workers' Comp. Programs, U. S. Dep't OF Labor, Transp. Indem. Co. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
  664 F.2d 1045· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 12×
  The Benefits Review Board had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's administrative appeal of the deputy commissioner's supplementary order regarding benefit payments.
• Hart v. State
  308 So. 3d 655· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-12-16 ·cited 11×
  A defendant is not entitled to a new Stand Your Ground hearing when the jury convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt at trial and the evidence from the first SYG hearing demonstrates the self-defense claim failed under both the pre-2017 and post-2017 burden of proof standards.
• Navarro v. Sugarcane Growers Coop. & Prof'l Administrators, Inc.
  661 So. 2d 946· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-10-25 ·cited 10×
  An employee receiving workers' compensation medical treatment sought enforcement of a 1991 authorization order after his employer unilaterally withdrew authorization in 1994. The court held that the circuit court has jurisdiction to enforce existing workers' compensation orders,
• Rosetta Slater Jackson and Frank Steven Davis v. State
  619 So. 2d 431· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-06-04 ·cited 10×
• Leonel Campos v. State
  515 So. 2d 1358· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-12-02 ·cited 10×
  Leonel Campos appeals his resentencing for robbery with a firearm and shooting at an occupied vehicle following a bank robbery, high-speed chase, and shots fired at police. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reverses and remands because the trial court relied on one invalid reas
• Jackson v. Franklin Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  806 F.2d 623· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the school district violated James Jackson's due process rights and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) by failing to provide proper notice and a hearing before excluding him from school.
• Elijah & Shirley C. Whitfield v. Termplan, Inc.
  651 F.2d 383· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-23 ·cited 10×
  A lender is not required to disclose post-maturity interest if the rate is the same as the stated contract rate, and a refinanced loan is not void if the original loan was made in good faith reliance on prior interpretations of law, even if later overturned.
• Modern Plating Co. v. Whitton
  394 So. 2d 515· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-02-23 ·cited 10×
  Modern Plating Company appeals a Deputy Commissioner's decision denying an offset of dependent social security benefits against workers' compensation payments for a permanently totally disabled employee. The court reversed, holding that the employer/carrier was entitled to offset
• Popkin v. NEW York State Health & Mental Hygiene Facilities Improvement Corp.
  547 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the New York State Health and Mental Hygiene Facilities Improvement Corporation was a political subdivision excluded from Title VII coverage prior to the 1972 amendments, and these amendments do not apply retroactively.
• Weahkee v. Powell
  532 F.2d 727· 10th Cir.· 1976-03-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the 1972 amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to pending charges and that the district court erred in dismissing claims for lack of jurisdiction or granting summary judgment without proper review of the administrative record.