Legal Opinion · Dissent

Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 2014No. 12-0617Published

1DissentJustice Lehrmann

I join Justioe Boyd in concluding that Chapter 90’s safety valve provision does not require a plaintiff to produce a pulmonary function test showing impairment. However, because the Court arrives at the opposite holding, I write separately to consider whether the application of Chapter 90 as construed and applied here violates the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on retroactive laws. Tex. Const, art. I, § 16.

“A retroactive statute is one which gives to preenactment conduct a different legal effect from that which it would have had without the passage of the statute.” Charles B. Hochman, The…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. BonjornoSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Rodriguez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

8 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