Dua v. Comcast Cable of Maryland, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that retroactive civil statutes affecting vested rights may invoke the takings clause
• stating that the relevant standard for determining whether a retrospective statute is constitutional is “whether the vested rights are impaired and not whether the statute has a rational basis.” (emphasis in original)
• detailing over 150 years of Maryland cases which invalidated retroactive legislation to “vested rights”
• detailing over 150 years of Maryland cases which invalidated retroactive legislation to \vested rights\
• “As pointed out in Frankel v. Board of Regents, 361 Md. 298, 313-314 n. 3, 761 A.2d 324, 332 n. 3 (2000
• “In light of this Court’s opinions, it is clear that retrospective statutes abrogating vested property rights (including contractual rights) violate the Maryland Constitution.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).