Opinion ID: 1927385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Chevron and Stoltz Retroactive Applications

Text: The United States Supreme Court announced the following framework for determining whether a decision should be applied retroactively: First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.... Second, it has been stressed that `we must ... weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.' ... Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for `[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the `injustice or hardship' by a holding of nonretroactivity.' Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) (citations omitted). This Court adopted the Chevron factors in Stoltz Management Co. v. Consumer Affairs Bd., Del.Supr., 616 A.2d 1205 (1992). In Stoltz, we stated that [t]he presumption is in favor of giving a decision retroactive effect and the party seeking to avoid retroactive application bears the burden of persuasion. Id. at 1210 (citing Juzwin v. Asbestos Corp., 3rd Cir., 900 F.2d 686, 693 (1990)). Furthermore, a court should deny retroactive application `only where on balance the weight of the three Chevron factors favor prospective application.' Id. at 1211 ( quoting Juzwin v. Asbestos Corp., 900 F.2d at 693).