Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (1978)

Citation: Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (1978) 1.
Parent Document: Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (1978)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1978-06-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2073911/mendes-v-johnson/ ↗

Full Text

1,377 chars

1. Reliance. The degree of the reliance by the litigants before the court, and in some cases by the public at large, on the legitimacy of the prior rule has played a major role in courts’ analysis of the retroac-tivity issue. Where retroactive application of a new rule would result in substantial disruption of settled transactions and/or injustice to a party because of reliance on the continued validity of the prior legal rule— especially one of long standing — courts are extremely reluctant to accord retroactive effect to overruling decisions. See, e. g., Westbrook v. Mihaly, 2 Cal.3d 765, 471 P.2d 487, 89 Cal.Rptr. 839 (1970) (applying new rule requiring mere majority approval by popular referendum for certification of local bond issues prospectively only because of reliance on the prior two-thirds majority requirement); Lester v. McFaddon, 415 F.2d 1101 (4th Cir. 1969) (applying new rule abolishing federal court jurisdiction in certain wrongful death actions prospectively only since the plaintiff sued in reliance on precedent to the contrary); State v. Martin, *79062 Wash.2d 645, 384 P.2d 833 (1963) (applying new rule that issuance and sale of limited obligation bonds funded by excise taxes on sales and handling of cigarettes contravened state constitutional provision limiting state debt prospectively only due to “massive” reliance on previous rule).23

Other Sections in This Document (216)

Full Text