Purdy v. Palmore’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Phil Hollenbach Co. v. Hollenbach · Maggard v. International Harvester Company · Commonwealth v. Herald Pub. Co. · Peach v. 21 Brands Distillery · Lanier v. Commonwealth, Fish & Wildlife Division
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Both Webster’s Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary and Ballantine’s Law Dictionary define “retroactive” essentially the same way, that is, “acting or designed to act in regards to things past ... having application to or effect on things prior to its enactment.” It is apparent that the amendment to KRS 342.185 affected things prior to its enactment. In fact, appellees do not dispute this. Appellees attempt to get around it, as did the Court of Appeals, by saying it was procedural and not substantive. The General Assembly made no such distinction [in KRS 446.080(3) ]. It prohibited retroactive application of the statute unless the statute so declared. The amendment to KRS 342.185 did not so declare....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.