Eighth Circuit· 4/3/1992
Fray v. Omaha World Herald Co.
Citations
- 960 F.2d 1370
- 1992 WL 65663
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).
Judges: Beam, Heaney, Loken
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.