City of Great Falls v. United States Department of Labor (1982)

Comm. of Kentucky Dept. of Human Resources v. Donovan, 704 F.2d 288 (6th Cir.1983); City of Boston v. Secretary of Labor, 631 F.2d 156 (1st Cir. 1980) (the Secretary’s authority is assumed); but see City of Great Falls v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir.1982).

Id. at 715-16 , 94 S.Ct. at 2018-19 ; Bruner, 343 U.S. at 112 , 72 S.Ct. at 581 ; City of Great Falls v. United States, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982).

Board of Trade v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 677 F.2d 1137, 1161 (7th Cir.1982). 9 We thus must take into account the Supreme Court's admonition in Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696, 711 , 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2016 , 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974) that: 10 A court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary. 11 See also, Payn…

City of Great Falls v. United States Dep't of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) 23 Applying these factors to this case, we would conclude that no manifest injustice will occur by applying this law retroactively.

City of Great Falls v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982).

City of Great Falls v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) Applying these factors to this case, we would conclude that no manifest injustice will occur by applying this law retroactively.

Id. at 715-16 ; City of Great Falls v. United States, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (CA9 1982) (per curiam) (retroactive application of statutory changes occurring during direct review of case). 10 An exception to this rule is that a new law will not be applied retroactively if such will result in manifest injustice.

Id. at 715-16 ; City of Great Falls v. United States, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (CA9 1982) (per curiam) (retroactive application of statutory changes occurring during direct review of case).

City of Great Falls v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

City of Great Falls v. United States Dep't of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). 45 The first factor derives from Chief Justice Marshall's statement that "in mere private cases between individuals, a court will and ought to struggle hard against a construction which will, by a retrospective operation, affect the rights of parties, but in great national concerns, where individual rights ... are sacrificed for national purposes, ... the court must decide a…

See generally Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia, 416 U.S. 696, 711 , 94 S.Ct. 2006, 2016 , 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974) (court is to apply law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in "manifest injustice”); City of Great Falls v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 1982) (manifest injustice analysis).

See Bradley, 416 U.S. 16 at 716–17; City of Great Falls v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 1982). 17 “In determining whether it would work an injustice to apply a change in law to a pending 18 case, the Supreme Court has directed courts to consider ‘(a) the nature and identity of the 19 parties, (b) the nature of their rights, and (c) the nature of the impact of the change in law 20 on those rights.’” City of Great Falls, 673 F.2d at 1068 (quoting Bradley,…

Id. at 1067, 1069 .

No one factor is dispositive, see City of Great Falls v. United States Department of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), but they serve to balance private and public interests and to resolve the issue of whether the "disappointment of private expectations caused by retroactive application will outweigh the public interest in enforcement of the new rule." Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 805 F.2d 1074, 1084 (1st Cir.1986); Hill, 676 F.Supp…

No one factor is dispositive, see City of Great Falls v. United States Department of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), but they serve to balance private and public interests and to resolve the issue of whether the “disappointment of private expectations caused by retroactive application will outweigh the public interest in enforcement of the new rule.” Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 805 F.2d 1074, 1084 (1st Cir.1986); Hill, 676 F.Supp…

Id. at 718-19; LTV Federal Credit Union v. UMIC Government Securities, Inc., 704 F.2d 199, 203-04 (5th Cir. 1983); City of Great Falls v. United States Dept. of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 1982).

See, e.g., City of Great Falls v. United States Department of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982); Florida Power and Light Co. v. Costle, 650 F.2d 579, 590 (5th Cir.1981); Iowa Power and Light Co. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 647 F.2d 796, 805 (8th Cir.1981).

See also City of Great Falls v. U.S. Department of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir.1982).

See also City of Great Falls v. U.S. Department of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068-69 (9th Cir.1982). 22 The Commission determined that manifest injustice would result if the appellants were deprived of reparation for any injury they suffered due to violation of the Shipping Act's "detriment to commerce" standard.

See City of Great Falls v. Department of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir.1982); Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Labor, 683 F.2d 568 (1st Cir.1982).

See Great Falls v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir.1982).

See City of Great Falls v. United States Department of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

See City of Great Falls v. United States Department of Labor, 673 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).