Opinion ID: 1879728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prospective Application of Walz

Text: Even if the decision in Walz were given only prospective application, it would not bar the suit by these plaintiffs under this court's prior interpretation of prospective application. The court in City of Aberdeen v. Meidinger, 89 S.D. 412, 233 N.W.2d 331 (1975) determined that the holding therein would have only prospective application. The court stated that the Meidinger decision does not apply to cases handled by the ... courts previous to the date of this decision. (emphasis added) Id., 233 N.W. 2d at 334. A review of prior cases involving both prospective and retroactive application make it clear that prospective application means the overruling decision is not applied to cases commenced before the decision was announced. [5] Therefore, the overruling decision is applied to cases commenced after the decision is announced. The Walz decision was announced in 1982 and Baatz commenced this action in 1984. Therefore, the Walz decision applies to the Baatz action. Although it can be argued that prospective application should mean the decision is applied only to transactions or events occurring after the announcement of the decision, this is not what our prior caselaw indicates and for obvious sound reason.