Graham & Foster v. Goodcell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a statutory provision \was manifestly intended to operate retroactively according to its terms\ where the tax statute spelled out meticulously the circumstances that defined the claims to which it applied and where the alternative interpretation was absurd
• holding that a statutory provision “was manifestly intended to operate retroactively according to its terms” where the tax statute spelled out meticulously the circumstances that defined the claims to which it applied and where the alternative interpretation was absurd
• Court found constitutional retroactive statute designed to preclude necessity of refunding taxes that over three years earlier had been collected after limitations period had expired
• “[D]efects in the administration of the law may be cured by subse- quent legislation without encroaching upon constitutional right . . . .”
• “[Defects in the administration of the law may be cured by subsequent legislation without encroaching upon constitutional right....”
• clear statement rule satisfied where new tax refund statute “expressly applied to internal revenue taxes” assessed before pre-enactment date certain

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).