Court Opinion

ID: 9797610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:25:51.409136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:24.791757
License: Public Domain

NEHRING, Justice,
concurring:
¶ 49 I concur in the opinion of the Associate Chief Justice and write separately out of apprehension that the failure of the Chief Justice’s concurrence to assemble a majority may betray her cause to clarify our jurisprudence concerning the retroactive application of statutes by carrying the inference that we take issue with her analysis. I do not. To the contrary, I endorse her proposed methodology for taking on issues of retroactive statutory application. Moreover, I agree that the identification of the elements of that methodology is an “important question.” It is not, however, a question that demands an answer in this case. Therefore, while I would be inclined to join the Chief Justice under other circumstances, because the status of Ms. Thomas’s abstract of award is moot, I decline to do so here.