Opinion ID: 1309243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: retroactive or prospective application of tyler

Text: [3] Since Washington law does not foreclose an inquiry into prospective application, we turn to the factors enunciated by the United States Supreme Court to determine whether prospective application is to be afforded in this case. Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 30 L.Ed.2d 296, 92 S.Ct. 349 (1971) sets out the three factors to be considered in deciding whether to give retroactive or prospective effect to a new rule in a federal civil case. Tyler, 107 S.Ct. at 2822. Courts must (1) determine whether the decision establishes 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; (2) 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; and (3) weigh the inequity imposed by retroactive application. Chevron Oil, at 106-07. (Although the tests for retroactive application in criminal cases have recently been reworked, the inquiry in civil cases is still controlled by Chevron Oil. Griffith v. Kentucky, ___ U.S. ___, 93 L.Ed.2d 649, 107 S.Ct. 708 (1987).)