Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Riverdale Heights Volunteer Fire Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “when the General Assembly intends a statute to have retrospective application, it knows how to express that intent” and providing examples thereof
• stating that, “[a]s a general rule, statutes are presumed to operate prospectively and are to be construed accordingly”
• stating that retroactive imposition of immunity “would cut off fully accrued causes of action for compensatory damages.”
• stating that the plaintiff \necessarily\ sought a retrospective application of a tort immunity statute because the case concerned the legal consequences of alleged conduct before the effective date of the statute
• noting that “[ajppellate jurisdiction requires a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory judgment”
• stating that although “[ajppellate jurisdiction requires a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory judgment, [ ] the Maryland Rules do not require that the judgment complained of be identified in the order for appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).