Rhodes v. Eckelman

How courts have described this case

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

• “The legislature knows how to direct retrospective application; it knows how to write emergency clauses. In this case it did neither.”
• “In deter- mining the effect to be given to a statute—whether denom- inated ‘prospective,’ ‘retroactive’ or something else—the function of the court is to ‘discern and declare’ the intent of the legislature.”
• court will not presume retroactive application when it leads to anomalous or strained outcomes
• legislature did not intend to revive an invalid notice by change in procedure
• “as is usual with labels, we find them less than dispositive”
• “The 1985 amend- ment was meant to alleviate the harsh consequences that often occurred when an otherwise timely notice of appeal was found to be defective because one of multiple parties— usually, one that had been removed from the case at the pleading stage—had not been served.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).