Opinion ID: 1908530
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mendes v. Johnson.

Text: As a general rule, statutes operate prospectively, while judicial decisions are applied retroactively. United States v. Security Indus. Bank, 459 U.S. 70, 79, 103 S.Ct. 407, 74 L.Ed.2d 235 (1982). When, as in Carl II, a decision of this court articulates a new rule of law, it is our duty to apply its holding to this case unless equitable considerations require a different result. Tenants of 2301 E St. N.W. v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 580 A.2d 622, 628 (D.C.1990) (citing United States v. The Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 110, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801)). In such cases, we must presumptively apply the law as it exists at the time of our decision, even though the trial judge's disposition was correct at the time of his ruling. Id. The leading District of Columbia case addressing the circumstances under which judicially-crafted changes in the common law are to be retroactively applied is Mendes v. Johnson, 389 A.2d 781 (D.C.1978) (en banc). In Mendes, the en banc court, overruling prior precedent, held that a tenant may not be evicted from his or her leasehold except by lawful process, and that a landlord who uses self-help to effect the physical dispossession of the tenant is liable in tort for wrongful eviction. Id. at 783-87. Turning to the question whether the new rule announced by the court should be applied retroactively, the court adopted the Supreme Court's then-current jurisprudence, as articulated in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965). The Supreme Court had stated in Linkletter that, as a matter of constitutional law, it was neither required to apply a decision retrospectively nor prohibited from doing so. According to Linkletter, 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. Id. at 629, 85 S.Ct. 1731; see also Mendes, 389 A.2d at 788 (quoting Linkletter ). In Mendes, in conformity with the broad guiding principles of Linkletter,  the court adopted a four-point analytical framework for determining whether, and to what extent, a decision overruling prior precedent should be applied retroactively. This framework included (1) the extent of the reliance of the parties on the old rule (including the degree of justifiable reliance and the hardship which might result to the litigants as a result of retrospective application); (2) avoidance of altering vested contract or property rights; (3) the desire to reward plaintiffs who seek to initiate just changes in the law; and (4) the fear of burdening the administration of justice by disturbing decisions reached under the overruled precedent. 389 A.2d at 789. Analyzing these criteria, the court held in Mendes that the new rule should be given only partial retroactive effect, i.e., [it] will apply to the instant parties as well as prospective application. Id. at 792.