Union Products Co.
4 Cited authorities
May Stores Co. v. Labor Board
326 U.S. 376 (1945) Cited 257 timesRequiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"
U.S. Fidelity Co. v. Struthers Wells Co.
209 U.S. 306 (1908) Cited 110 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a statute "ought not to receive [retroactive] construction unless the words used are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied"
United States v. St. Louis, Etc. Ry. Co.
270 U.S. 1 (1926) Cited 46 timesHolding that "a statute shall not be given retroactive effect unless such construction is required by explicit language or by necessary implication"
Fullerton Co. v. Northern Pacific
266 U.S. 435 (1925) Cited 46 timesIn Fullerton-Krueger Lumber Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry., 266 U.S. 435, 45 S.Ct. 143, 144, 69 L.Ed. 367, Justice McReynolds, speaking for the court, quoting from Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. 328, 347, 17 L.Ed. 871, said: "It is a rule of construction, that all statutes are to be considered prospective, unless the language is expressly to the contrary, or there is a necessary implication to that effect."