Aetna Cas. Surety Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com

8 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. S.C. (LARA)

    Petitioner’s Petition for Review with Request for Stay

    Filed April 13, 2017

    Thereis then no problem as to whether the Legislature intended the changes to operate retroactively.’ ” (Tapia, at p. 290, quoting Aetna Casualty, supra, 30 Cal.2d at p. 394.) Moreover, “We must assumethat [the] voters knew about and followed Tapia.”

  2. Jennifer Bentley v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company et Al.

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12

    Filed February 9, 2017

    20 Again, United's decision that the Policy lapsed for non-payment of premiums 21 by the Insured, even if found to have run afoul of the Statutes because they apply to 22 policies issued or delivered prior to the effective date but "renewed" after the 23 effective date, was based on a reasonable interpretation of the Statutes and the ample 24 case law giving statutes solely a prospective effect. See Aetna Casualty & Surety 25 Co. v. Industrial Ace. Com., 30 Cal. 2d 388, 393 (1947) ("It is an established canon 26 of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is 27 clearly made to appear that such was the legislative intent."); Myers v. Phillip 28 Morris Cos., Inc., 28 Cal. 4th 828, 844 (2002) ("[A] statute may be applied HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 19800 MacArthur Boulevard 8th Floor 23 36248755vl 0977380 Irvine, CA 92612-2427 949-757-2800 Case 2:15-cv-07870-DMG-AJW Document 89-1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 29 of 31 Page ID #:1222 1 retroactively only if it contains express language of retroactivity or if other sources 2 provide a clear and unavoidable implication that the Legislature intended retroactive 3 application.

  3. PEOPLE v. S.C.

    Real Party in Interest, Richard Anthony Smith, Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed December 24, 2015

    Even if newly added section 6603, subdivision (j)(1), can be constitutionally implemented, it may only be applied prospectively. Legislative changes do not apply retroactively unless the Legislature expresses its intention that they should do so. (Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. DepartmentofAlcoholic Beverage Control (1966) 65 Cal.2d 349, 371; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1947) 30 Cal.2d 388, 393.) [T]he generalrule of construction, coming to us from the commonlaw, that 5 when there is nothing to indicate a contrary intent in a statute it will be presumed that the Legislature intended the statute to operate prospectively and not retroactively.

  4. PEOPLE v. ABEL (JOHN C.)

    Appellant's Opposition

    Filed April 23, 2010

    ) A statute has a retroactive or retrospective effect whenever the new law “attaches new legal consequences to ‘events completed’ before its enactment, and that such a determination must include consideration of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations.” (Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, supra, 16 Cal.4th at 536, n.6; accord, Evangelatos v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.3d at 1206 [law is retroactive if it affects acts or transactions performedprior to its enactment or conditions and rights existing priorto its adoption]; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com, supra, 30 Cal.2d at 391 [same]; see also, Landgrafv. USI Film Products, supra, 511 U.S. at 269-70 and n. 23 [collecting prior United States Supreme Court decisions and emphasizing considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance and settled expectations].

  5. Claire Headley v. Church of Scientology International et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12

    Filed June 10, 2009

    The California Supreme Court defines retroactivity as something that "affect[s] rights, obligations, acts, transactions and conditions performed or existing prior to adoption of the statute." Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission et al., 30 Cal.2d 388, 396 (1947) (finding that amendment to labor code did not apply to conduct that occurred before its enactment where the language of the amended statute did not clearly indicate that the Legislature intended it to apply in cases where the injury occurred before the effective date of the enactment) (emphasis added); City of Monte Sereno v. Padgett, 149 Cal. App. 4th 1530, 1537 (2007). "[A] statute will be construed as prospective unless there is clear legislative intent that it applies retroactively."

  6. PEOPLE v. S.C. (LARA)

    Petitioner’s Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

    Filed October 18, 2017

    It would be a most peculiar judicial reasoning which would allow one such doctrine to be invoked for the purposes of destroying the other.’ (Id. at pp. 173-174, quoting Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission (1947) 30 Cal.2d 388, 395.) Further, since most voterinitiatives are remedial in nature and intended to “‘improvea pre-existing situation,” giving retroactive effect to statutes on that basis would be contrary to California law, which unambiguously requires the prospective application of new lawsin the absence of a clear showing to the contrary.

  7. PEOPLE v. S.C.

    Real Party in Interest, Richard Anthony Smith, Supplemental Reply Brief

    Filed August 25, 2016

    Even if this court finds the Legislature’s treatment goals have not been eviscerated, this court should find that section 6603(j) may only be applied prospectively. Legislative changes do not apply retroactively unless the Legislature expressesits intention that they should do so. (Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1966) 65 Cal.2d 349, 371; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Industrial Acci. Com. (1947) 30 Cal.2d 388, 393.) Furthermore, section 6603(j) may not be applied to retroactively waive the confidentiality provisions in section 5328.

  8. PEOPLE v. WEAVER (LATWON R.)

    Appellant's Opposition

    Filed November 10, 2011

    Section 3 is a codification of the principle, “familiar to every law student,” United States v. Security Industrial Bank, 459 U.S. 70, 79 (1982), that “statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unlessit is clearly made to appear that such wasthe legislative intent.” Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 30 Cal. 2d 388, 393 (1947). A statute has a retroactive effect whenever the new law “attaches new legal consequencesto ‘events completed’ before its enactment, and... sucha determination must include consideration of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations.”