Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Progress v. First Judicial District Court

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 1931No. 2948PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

From a consideration of the pronounced policy of the law against retrospective legislation, there has been evolved a strict rule of construction in this regard. There is always a presumption that statutes are intended to operate prospectively only, and words ought not to have a retrospective operation unless they are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied. Every reasonable doubt is resolved against a retroactive operation of a statute. If all of the language of a statute can be…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Lamb v. Powder River Live Stock Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
  2. Barrington v. BarringtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
  3. Worthington v. District Court of the Second Judicial DistrictNevada Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Cole v. ColeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
  5. Hurry v. HurrySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1917

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Gleason v. GleasonNew York Court of Appeals · 1970
  2. Tipping v. TippingCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1936
  3. Cassaro v. CassaroOhio Court of Appeals · 1976
  4. Matter of Estate of ThomasNevada Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Walsh v. Clark County School DistrictNevada Supreme Court · 1966

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API