Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 11-735

Citation
Section 11-735
Parent Document
Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (1978)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1978-06-13

Other Sections in This Document (216)

Full Text

615 chars
I suppose one can rationalize various sorts of academic distinctions on prospective versus retroactive effect that may seem rather impressive but, for me, in the end it gets down to simple equity. Why should this court approve a penalty laid upon a litigant whose act was authorized by an extant decision of this court — a decision which must now be overruled in deciding this case? One might consider this court more nearly responsible than the litigant. In a case quite similar in principle we concluded the decision should be given prospective effect. Kelly Adjustment Co. v. Boyd, D.C.App., 342 A.2d 361 (1975).