Eagleman v. Diocese of Rapid City

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that this Court has “never held that a newly enacted limitations period applies retroactively to a pending lawsuit”
• noting that “the motivation of a few representatives cannot be attributed to the Legislature as a whole”
• noting that the “Legislature did not express an intent” that an amended statute of limitations should apply retroactively “to pending litigation” and deeming it “unsound to apply” the statute “to abruptly terminate plaintiffs’ pending suits”
• “For summary judgment purposes, an unsigned and unsworn affidavit is a nullity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).