- 13 -
at 257, the above text constitutes markedly more than “the mere
promulgation of an effective date”, INS v. St. Cyr, supra at 317.
SBJPA section 1605(d)(1) does not just state when the law is to
take effect. Rather, the provision explicitly dictates the
particular conduct and the timing thereof to which the amendments
“shall apply”. According to the express text, receipt of
payments after the August 20, 1996, date of enactment falls
within the intended scope of the amended version of section 104,
unless the explicit exception for a prior binding agreement,
court decree, or mediation award is applicable.
Here, the jury verdict in petitioner’s favor was not
returned until August 16, 1996, and the appellate process was not
completed until the Texas Supreme Court denied review on
October 15, 1998. Petitioner’s situation therefore fails to
satisfy the requisites for relief under SBJPA section 1605(d)(2).
In such event, SBJPA section 1605(d)(1) explicitly and
unambiguously prescribes the temporal reach of the section 104
amendments to the situation at hand. We conclude that Landgraf
v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994), would pose no barrier
here to application of the revised section 104.
Moreover, less than 2 months after issuing its decision in
Landgraf, and without reference thereto, the Supreme Court
decided United States v. Carlton, supra. The issue in United
States v. Carlton, supra at 27, was the propriety of retroactive
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011