City of Boston v. Keene Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• regarding asbestos liability tort, limitation period is procedural rather than substantive and may be retroactively expanded
• “the running of the limitations period . . . does not create a vested right which cannot constitutionally be taken away by subsequent statutory revival of the barred remedy”
• “[A] party seeking declaratory judgment need not demonstrate an actual impairment of rights.”
• challenge to constitutionality of statute expanding limitations period governing certain asbestos-related claims; “[t]he sole issue is whether the statute falls within the legislative power to enact, not whether it comports with a court’s idea of wise or efficient legislation”
• retroactivity constitutional in part because “the record before us contain[ed] ample justification for the legislative conclusion that asbestos is highly toxic and that the public health and welfare require strong and immediate action to abate its hazards”
• “the defendants’ interest in the limitations defense is procedural rather than substantive. . . . [I]n cases not involving claims to real property, the running of the applicable limitations period bars only the legal remedy, while leaving the underlying cause of action unaffected”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).