Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments

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

• Hecht v. Parkinson
  70 So. 2d 505· Fla.· 1954-02-19 ·cited 10×
  This case addresses whether an employee's dependents are entitled to increased workmen's compensation benefits enacted after the injury but before the employee's death. The court held that benefits are determined by the law in effect at the time of the injury.
• Oldden v. Tonto Realty Corp.
  143 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1944-05-17 ·cited 10×
  A landlord must deduct security deposit from the total allowable claim under Bankruptcy Act § 63, sub. a(9), not from the total damages calculated under the lease, to avoid exceeding the statutory limit.
• Morris v. Tonda S. Swanson
  940 So. 2d 1256· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-11-06 ·cited 9×
  In this child support case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed that a father's child support obligation runs from the child's birth date, not from two years before the mother's petition filing, rejecting the father's argument that the 1998 amendment to section 61
• Downs v. Dir., Off. OF Workers Comp. Programs, United States Dep't OF Labor, Tex. Star Shipping Co. & Tex. Emp'rs Ins. Assn.
  803 F.2d 193· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the 1984 amendment to § 908(i) applies retroactively to bar challenges to the settlement order, and § 922 cannot be used to modify a final settlement order.
• Stapler v. State
  939 So. 2d 1092· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-09-08 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to correct sentence, holding that the sentencing court did not lose jurisdiction to revoke community control because the issuance of a warrant for violation, under the law at the time, tolled the community control period.
• Beaubrum v. State
  616 So. 2d 9· Fla.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 8×
• Reddick v. State
  554 So. 2d 564· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-12-12 ·cited 8×
  Angelo Reddick appealed his convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, shooting into an occupied dwelling, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the murder and attempted murder convict
• Carter v. Celebrezze
  367 F.2d 382· 4th Cir.· 1966-10-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the case must be remanded because the lower court and the Secretary applied an outdated statutory standard for disability benefits, rather than the standard established by the 1965 amendments.
• Boston v. State
  260 So. 3d 445· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-11-30 ·cited 7×
  The 2017 amendment to section 776.032(4), Florida Statutes, which shifts the burden to the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is not entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity, applies retroactively and must be applied on remand. The trial court erred by
• MGM Constr. Servs. Corp. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. OF Am.
  57 So. 3d 884· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-03-02 ·cited 7×
  MGM Construction Services Corp., an unlicensed subcontractor, appealed a summary judgment that rendered its subcontracts unenforceable based solely on violation of Miami-Dade County's licensing ordinance. The appellate court reversed, holding that courts must apply a flexible, mu
• Harrison Porterfield v. State
  567 So. 2d 429· Fla.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 7×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed two First District Court of Appeal decisions that authorized separate convictions and sentences for sale and possession with intent to sell of controlled substances. The Court held that chapter 88-131 (effective July 1, 1988) authorizing such sep
• Cooper Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Dir., Off. OF Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't OF Labor, & Ralph M. Dorsey
  826 F.2d 1011· 11th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 7×
  The court held that an order from the Benefits Review Board remanding a case for further findings of fact is not a final order and therefore not subject to judicial review.
• McGregor v. Fowler White Burnett, P.A.
  332 So. 3d 481· Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-12-01 ·cited 6×
  Fraudulent transfer claims brought in proceedings supplementary seeking money damages must be pursued under section 56.29(9) and are therefore subject to chapter 726's statute of limitations under section 726.110, not exempt from those limitations by virtue of being brought under
• Zook v. State
  883 So. 2d 332· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-09-01 ·cited 6×
  Jason Zook appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief challenging his sentencing as a Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR). The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, finding that the offenses for which he received PRR enhancements—burglary of an unoccupied dw
• Hester v. State
  779 So. 2d 471· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-10-27 ·cited 6×
  The trial court did not err in denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence because the sentence was imposed in accordance with the statute in effect at the time of the offense.
• Wilson v. Giesen
  956 F.2d 738· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint was untimely filed, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• Arnette v. State
  566 So. 2d 1369· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-09-20 ·cited 6×
  Arnette, a youthful offender originally sentenced to a probationary split sentence, challenges his re-sentencing to life and five years after violating community control. The court holds that pre-1985 amendment law limited youthful offender re-sentencing to four years maximum, an
• Cisco Coop. Grain Co. & Prairie Cent. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  717 F.2d 401· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the ICC's 90-day regulation frustrated congressional intent by reducing the guaranteed window for feeder applications.
• Smith E. Carreathers v. Alexander
  587 F.2d 1046· 10th Cir.· 1978-11-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while a trial de novo was not warranted for issues already decided favorably, it may be appropriate for the harassment claim. The 1972 amendments apply retroactively to allow consideration of pre-effective date discrimination within the two-year limitation per
• Nash v. State
  313 So. 2d 118· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-05-28 ·cited 6×
  Appellant is entitled to credit for jail time served prior to sentencing due to a statutory amendment.
• VAN DEN Bliek v. State
  281 So. 2d 218· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the escape statute's requirement of a "convicted and sentenced" prisoner applied to escapes occurring after a 1969 amendment, but not to those before it.
• United States v. Rumbough
  393 F.2d 396· 6th Cir.· 1968-04-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to credit for pre-sentence custody because bail was not set during the periods he was in federal custody.
• Hermione King v. Gardner
  391 F.2d 401· 5th Cir.· 1967-08-29 ·cited 6×
  The court, in a dissenting opinion, argues that the majority's interpretation of the Social Security Act's disability provisions improperly shifts the burden of proof to the Secretary and converts the program into unemployment compensation. The dissent contends that the Act requi
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Glover
  202 So. 2d 106· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-07-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 1963 amendment to F.S.A. § 627.0851(1) was not retroactive. Therefore, a prior rejection of uninsured motorist coverage did not apply to a new policy issued after the amendment.
• Hart v. Bowen
  802 F.2d 1334· 11th Cir.· 1986-10-20 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the law in effect at the time of the applicant's death and application for benefits governs inheritance rights for Social Security survivor benefits.
• Maddox v. State
  288 So. 3d 1223· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-12-27 ·cited 4×
  A defendant is not entitled to a new Stand Your Ground hearing when the trial court applied an incorrect burden of proof but the evidence clearly establishes the defendant is not entitled to immunity under either standard.
• Drossos v. State
  43 Fla. L. Weekly D2237· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-12-14 ·cited 4×
  Peter Drossos appeals his manslaughter conviction, arguing he is entitled to a new pretrial immunity hearing under Florida's amended Stand Your Ground law. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the 2017 amendment to section 776.032, which shifted the burden of proof to th
• Hampton v. Cale OF Fort Myers, Inc.
  964 So. 2d 822· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-09-19 ·cited 4×
  Hampton sued defendants for antitrust conspiracy when his wholesaler stopped supplying him after pressure from competitors. Summary judgment was granted for all defendants, and the trial court awarded attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes. The court affirmed the
• Makro Cap. of Am., Inc. v. Ubs Ag
  436 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 2006-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a qui tam action is barred if the government possessed the essential information to investigate the case prior to the action's filing, even if the information was obtained through the relator's own efforts.
• Hanna v. State
  898 So. 2d 1200· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-04-08 ·cited 4×
  Martin Hanna appeals his mandatory minimum sentence under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, challenging whether burglary of an unoccupied dwelling qualified as a triggering offense when he committed the crime. The court vacates the sentence because the statute did not inc
• Bradshaw v. State
  891 So. 2d 1184· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-02-02 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence, finding the prison releasee reoffender enhancement improper.
• Cohen v. State
  656 So. 2d 525· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-05-26 ·cited 4×
  Statutory and rule amendments regarding sentencing do not apply retroactively to offenses committed before their effective date. The court certifies a question regarding reversible error for delayed written sentencing reasons.
• Smith v. State
  616 So. 2d 1116· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-04-09 ·cited 4×
  Smith appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct sentences imposed under the habitual offender statute. The court vacated his sentences because the 1989 amendments to the habitual offender statute were unconstitutional, and he was sentenced during the unconstitutional p
• Farrell v. Captain Lawrence McDONOUGH
  966 F.2d 279· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the inmate's section 1983 complaint against the captain was time-barred because the amended complaint was filed outside the applicable two-year statute of limitations and did not relate back.
• NCNB Tex. Nat'l Bank v. P & R Invs. NO. 6
  962 F.2d 518· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the FDIC's removal of the case was timely under an amended statute, and the district court's remand order should be vacated.
• Univ. Med. Ctr. & Johns E. Co., Inc. v. Sumpter
  591 So. 2d 288· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-12-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amendment to section 440.15(3)(b)l, Florida Statutes, created a new offset right for the employer/carrier against wage-loss benefits, and this change was substantive and not retroactive to the claimant's injury date.
• Clinton Hosp. Ass'n v. The Corson Grp., Inc.
  907 F.2d 1260· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying a functional analysis to determine if the defendant's actions occurred primarily and substantially within Massachusetts under MGLA ch. 93A, § 11.
• Bernardin Inglis v. State
  547 So. 2d 702· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-08-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that dual convictions for possession and sale of the same cocaine, committed before the statutory amendment's effective date, are illegal and require vacation of one conviction.
• Boyd v. State
  546 So. 2d 132· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-07-19 ·cited 4×
  James Boyd was convicted of kidnapping and four counts of sexual battery against a child, receiving consecutive mandatory minimum life sentences. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that consecutive mandatory minimum sentences cannot be imposed for crimes arisin
• Aldendifer v. Cont'l AIR Lines, Inc.
  650 F.2d 171· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-23 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Hunter v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  616 F.2d 267· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 4×
  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.
• Wood v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  580 F.2d 339· 8th Cir.· 1978-08-02 ·cited 4×
  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.
• In re Pioneer Sample Book Co., Inc.
  374 F.2d 953· 3d Cir.· 1967-03-03 ·cited 4×
  Administrative expenses of an unsuccessful Chapter XI arrangement proceeding are not chargeable against the proceeds of assets subject to a secured lien, and only specific bankruptcy administration costs are chargeable to liened assets when sold without objection.
• Henderson v. Selective Ins. Co.
  369 F.2d 143· 6th Cir.· 1966-11-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the owner's insurer provided primary coverage and the driver's insurer provided excess coverage, and that attorneys' fees were not recoverable.
• City of Homestead/ Preferred v. Harley Foust
  242 So. 3d 1169· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-01-26 ·cited 3×
  A law enforcement officer must pass a physical examination immediately upon entering into service as a full-time officer to qualify for the statutory presumption of occupational causation for heart disease and hypertension under section 112.18, Florida Statutes. A physical examin
• CRC 603, LLC v. N. Carillon, LLC
  77 So. 3d 655· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-09-07 ·cited 3×
  CRC 603 and CRC 1103 sought to void luxury condominium purchase contracts based on alleged violations of Florida's escrow requirements under section 718.202. The court held that the 2006 statute required separate escrow accounts for deposits up to 10% and deposits exceeding 10%,
• Henry v. Dugger
  574 So. 2d 1103· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-11-06 ·cited 3×
  Willie C. Henry sought mandamus review challenging the Department of Corrections' denial of administrative gain time based on a prior sexual battery conviction whose sentence had fully expired. The court held that although Henry would have qualified for gain time under the 1987 s
• G. E. J. v. State
  401 So. 2d 1325· Fla.· 1981-07-23 ·cited 3×
  Twenty-seven juvenile appellants were convicted of escape from the Jacksonville Youth Development Center under Florida statute 39.112. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and rejected constitutional challenges to the escape statute, holding that the Center qualifie
• Tillman v. State
  43 Fla. L. Weekly D2764· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-03-13 ·cited 2×
  # LEGAL BRIEF **Tillman v. State of Florida**, 2D16-5566 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 13, 2019): The Second District Court of Appeal held that the 2017 amendment to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law (§ 776.032) applies retroactively to pending cases and is procedural in nature, reversing t
• Mack v. State
  91 So. 3d 868· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-04-20 ·cited 2×
  Joe Mack appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion, arguing that a federal court decision declaring Florida's drug possession statute unconstitutional entitled him to relief. The court affirmed the denial because the federal decision addressed a 2002 amendment to th