Benally v. Hodel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Civil Rights Act of 1991 not retroactive
• reciting the legislative history and reaching the astonishing conclusion that the legislative intent was \surely that the new law be prospective only\
• holding not retroactive based on a presumption
• applying retroactively the portion of the statute governing expert witness fees
• “[WJhenever a congressional majority could be marshalled, retroactivity opponents ‘hedged their bets’ by expressly making specific provisions, such as [Section 109], prospective only.”
• “this case involves civil rights, undisputable a ‘great national concern' that merits a presumption of retroactivity.’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).