Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 11 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. LaSalle.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. LaSalle Anchor | green | “absent a clear pronouncement by the general assembly that a statute is to be applied retrospectively, a statute may be applied prospectively only.” | 5 |
| 2 | Gregory v. Flowers | green | “when the retroactive application of a statute of limitation operates to destroy an accrued substantive right, such application conflicts with section 28, article ii of the ohio constitution.” | 4 |
| 3 | State v. LaSalle | green | “clear pronouncement by the general assembly that a statute is to be applied retrospectively, a statute may be applied prospectively only.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.