Landgraf v. USI Film Products
- Decided
- April 26, 1994
- Docket
- 92-757
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,825 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a statute is not retrospective simply because it upsets expectations based on prior law — State Ex Rel. McAllister v. Goode (1997)
- holding that new statutory provisions enacted while case was pending on appeal did not apply to that case — In Re EMN (2007)
- holding that "prospectivity remains the appropriate default rule" in statutory interpretation and requiring "clear congressional intent" for retroactive application — Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman (2011)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion óf the Court.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act or Act) creates a right to recover compensatory and punitive damages for certain violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Rev. Stat. § 1977A(a), 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(a) (1988 ed., Supp. IV), as added by § 102 of the 1991 Act, Pub. L. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1072. The Act further provides that any party may demand a trial by jury if such damages are sought.[1] We granted certiorari to decide whether these provisions apply to a Title VII case that was pending on appeal when the statute was enacted. We hold that they do not.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.