California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Cummings v. Morez, 116 Cal.Rptr. 586, 42 Cal.App.3d 66 (Cal. App. 1974):
FINALLY: In County of Los Angeles v. Faus, 48 Cal.2d 672, 680--681, 312 P.2d 680, 685--686, it was held: '. . . It is the general rule that a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction overruling a former decision is retrospective in its operation. . . . A well-recognized exception to this general rule is that, where a constitutional provision or statute has received a given construction by a court of last resort and contracts have been made or property rights acquired under and in accordance with its decision, such contracts will not be invalidated nor will vested rights acquired under the decision be impaired by a change of construction adopted in a subsequent decision. . . . Applying the foregoing principles to the facts in the instant case, it is apparent that it was tried by the trial judge and attorneys for both parties upon a theory of law heretofore announced by this court that we are now overruling. It is also evident that neither contract nor property rights have vested in either party by virtue of our previous decisions on the points here involved. Therefore, this case falls within the general rule set forth above and not within the exception.' (See
Page 591
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.