27 Cited authorities

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R. A. Gray Co.
467 U.S. 717 (1984) Cited 759 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that retroactive aspects of legislation must satisfy due process, a burden "met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose"
Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.
428 U.S. 1 (1976) Cited 927 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that black lung compensation scheme satisfied due process because it was a "rational measure to spread the costs of the employee's disabilities to those who have profited from the fruits of their labor"
United States v. Carlton
512 U.S. 26 (1994) Cited 181 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding no violation of due process where retroactive application of a legislative amendment is "rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose"
United States v. Darusmont
449 U.S. 292 (1981) Cited 109 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the permissible period of retroactivity for federal taxation statutes "has been confined to short and limited periods required by the practicalities of producing national legislation."
In the Matter of Gleason
96 N.Y.2d 117 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 125 times
Noting that the Legislature conveyed "a sense of immediacy," by, among other things, "direct[ing] that the amendment was to take effect immediately"
North v. Board of Examiners
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 5781 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 92 times
In Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y. (8 N.Y.3d 745, 753 [2007]), the Court of Appeals articulated that, in order to be a registerable offense in New York, "the 'essential elements' provision in SORA requires registration whenever an individual is convicted of criminal conduct in a foreign jurisdiction that, if committed in New York, would have amounted to a registerable New York offense."
Milliken v. United States
283 U.S. 15 (1931) Cited 207 times
Upholding retroactive application of federal estate tax statute to tax gifts made prior to enactment of the statute
Mtr. of OnBank Trust Co.
90 N.Y.2d 725 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 81 times
Finding that a portion of Banking Law § 100–c would be meaningless if applied prospectively only, given the statute's reference to EPTL § 11–2.2(b), which contains a specific date, thus warranting a retroactive application of the statute
Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Central School District
(N.Y. May. 12, 1998) Cited 75 times
In Majewski the New York Court of Appeals observed that "the date that legislation is to take effect is a separate question from whether the statute should apply to claims and rights then in existence."
In re Dutchess County Dept. of Social Ser., v. Day
96 N.Y.2d 149 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 62 times
Decided May 3, 2001. Appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered February 28, 2000, which affirmed an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Damian J. Amodeo, J.), denying objections to two orders of that Family Court (Esther R. Furman, H.E.) that directed respondents to pay a total of $4,375 as reimbursement to petitioner for money it expended on behalf of respondents' minor child while

In the Matter of Hague Corporation, Respondent,v.Empire Zone Designation Board, et al., Appellants.

27 Cited authorities

Holding that retroactive aspects of legislation must satisfy due process, a burden "met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose"

Holding that black lung compensation scheme satisfied due process because it was a "rational measure to spread the costs of the employee's disabilities to those who have profited from the fruits of their labor"

Holding no violation of due process where retroactive application of a legislative amendment is "rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose"

Holding that the permissible period of retroactivity for federal taxation statutes "has been confined to short and limited periods required by the practicalities of producing national legislation."

Noting that the Legislature conveyed "a sense of immediacy," by, among other things, "direct[ing] that the amendment was to take effect immediately"

Upholding retroactive application of federal estate tax statute to tax gifts made prior to enactment of the statute

Finding that a portion of Banking Law § 100–c would be meaningless if applied prospectively only, given the statute's reference to EPTL § 11–2.2(b), which contains a specific date, thus warranting a retroactive application of the statute

In Majewski the New York Court of Appeals observed that "the date that legislation is to take effect is a separate question from whether the statute should apply to claims and rights then in existence."