George J. Luddington v. Indiana Bell Telephone Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Act’s changes in remedies and procedures are more than “merely technical changes” and “can have as profound an impact on behavior outside the courtroom as avowedly substantive changes.”
• noting that Title VII changes were changes in procedure, remedies, and evidence, but noting nonetheless that these changes could impact reliance interests and should not be applied retroactively
• \The floor debates on the 1991 act reveal ... divergent views on these questions [concerning retroactivity].\
• \The floor debates on the 1991 act reveal ... divergent views on these questions [concerning retroactivity].\
• “the pre-Patterson ‘legal regime’ ... was merely a set of lower-court decisions, constituting a stab in the dark concerning issues on which the Supreme Court had not yet ruled.”
• “the new act is applicable only to conduct engaged in after the effective dates ... in the act, at least if the suit has been brought before the effective dates.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).