Journal Article•
A Basic Concern for Process: Commentary on Quo Vadis, Prospective Overruling
About: This article is published in Hastings Law Journal.The article was published on 1999-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 2 citations till now.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The potential application of a strengths perspective and its usefulness in reshaping the discourse on stigmatization of the LGB community and its members are examined.
Abstract: Although the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) community has seen new protections and benefits in the last quarter century, LGB people continue to experience stigmatization throughout American society. Social work research that frames the LBG community and its members as disenfranchised, marginalized, and oppressed tends to support a stigmatizing attitude toward LGB people. Social work research with the LGB community and its members must shift from a focus on pathology to strengths and resources. This article examines the potential application of a strengths perspective and its usefulness in reshaping the discourse on stigmatization of the LGB community and its members.
19 citations
TL;DR: In every American jurisdiction, new rules of law announced by a court are presumed to have retrospective effect as mentioned in this paper, that is, they are not only applicable to events occurring before the date of judgment, but also in certain cases where a court believes that application of the new rule will upset serious and reasonable reliance on the prior state of the law.
Abstract: In every American jurisdiction, new rules of law announced by a court are presumed to have retrospective effect – that is, they are presumed to apply to events occurring before the date of judgment. There are, however, exceptions in certain cases where a court believes that application of the new rule will upset serious and reasonable reliance on the prior state of the law. This chapter summarizes these exceptional cases. It shows that the proper occasions for issuing exclusively or partially prospective judgments have varied over time and that there are still substantial differences in approach according to the particular jurisdiction and the kind of law under consideration. The chapter concludes with a brief survey of some of the still unresolved jurisprudential and constitutional problems raised by recognition of the power of courts to issue non-retroactive judgments.
4 citations