24 Cited authorities

  1. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R. A. Gray Co.

    467 U.S. 717 (1984)   Cited 677 times   1 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"
  2. United States v. Carlton

    512 U.S. 26 (1994)   Cited 163 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party's detrimental reliance on a statute prior to retroactive change is insufficient to demonstrate a due process violation where there is no vested interest
  3. United States v. Darusmont

    449 U.S. 292 (1981)   Cited 115 times   1 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."
  4. Welch v. Henry

    305 U.S. 134 (1938)   Cited 337 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding Wisconsin law providing for retroactive application of graduated tax on dividends
  5. Grace v. New York State Tax Commission

    37 N.Y.2d 193 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 192 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued May 1, 1975 Decided June 12, 1975 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Francis V. Dow, Ruth Kessler Toch and Vincent P. Molineaux of counsel), for appellant. Walter J. Rockler for respondent. Chief Judge BREITEL. In an article 78 (CPLR) proceeding, the State Tax Commission appeals from a judgment, denominated an order, of the Appellate Division modifying its determination. The commission had determined

  6. Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Central School District

    (N.Y. May. 12, 1998)   Cited 52 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.
  7. St. Clair Nation v. City of New York

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3471 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 13 times

    No. 63. Argued March 22, 2010. decided April 29, 2010. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from a judgment (denominated decision and order) of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered March 10, 2009, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division by order of the Supreme Court, entered in New York County). The Appellate Division judgment, insofar as appealed from, modified, on the law, a determination of respondent

  8. James Square Associates LP v. Mullen

    91 A.D.3d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    In James Square Associates, LP v Mullen (91 AD3d 164 [4th Dept., 2011]) the Court affirmed the decision of Justice Cherundolo, not on the absence of legislative intent to make the revocation of Empire Zone certificates retroactive, but rather on substantive due process grounds.
  9. Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v. Monaghan

    9 N.Y.2d 293 (N.Y. 1961)   Cited 80 times
    In Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v. Monaghan (9 N.Y.2d 293), not only did the court expressly reserve the very question here sought to be raised (p. 303) but one judge actually expressed the view that section 45-a was "constitutionally invalid" in its entirety (pp. 311-315, per DYE, J., concurring).
  10. Tate Lyle v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv

    87 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 1996)   Cited 21 times
    Upholding nine-year period of retroactive application
  11. Section 11.9 - Revocation of certification

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 5 § 11.9   Cited 15 times

    (a) The commissioner may revoke the certification of a business enterprise upon a finding of any one of the following: (1) the business enterprise made material misrepresentations of fact on its application for certification or on a business annual report, or the business enterprise failed to disclose facts in its application for certification that would constitute grounds for not issuing a certification; (2) the business enterprise has failed to construct, expand, rehabilitate, invest in or operate