Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Barbara Landgraf v. Usi Film Products Et Al.

• 1993 • 511 U.S. 244 • Rehnquist Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Barbara Landgraf v. USI Film Products et al., 1993, revolved around the issue of whether provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 could be applied retroactively to cases that were pending when the act was passed. The plaintiff, Barbara Landgraf, had filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against her employer prior to this law's enactment and sought compensatory damages under its new provisions after it came into effect. However, her employer argued that these changes...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Rehnquist Court
Term: 1993
Docket: 92-757
511 U.S. 244
114 S. Ct. 1483
128 L. Ed. 2d 229
1994 U.S. LEXIS 3292
Argued: Oct 13, 1993

Barbara Landgraf v. Usi Film Products Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Barbara Landgraf v. USI Film Products et al., 1993, revolved around the issue of whether provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 could be applied retroactively to cases that were pending when the act was passed. The plaintiff, Barbara Landgraf, had filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against her employer prior to this law's enactment and sought compensatory damages under its new provisions after it came into effect. However, her employer argued that these changes should not apply retrospectively as they were not explicitly stated in the legislation itself. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of USI Film Products by holding that unless Congress clearly states otherwise within a statute’s text or historical context, federal laws will not apply retroactively to events predating their enactment if doing so would infringe upon or impair rights a party possessed when he acted; increase his liability for past conduct; or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Barbara Landgraf v. USI Film Products et al., argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 should be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time it was enacted. The dissent, led by Justice Blackmun, contended that Congress intended for this law to apply to all cases not yet final when it passed. This interpretation is based on a provision within the act itself which states that it applies to all proceedings pending on or after its enactment date. Furthermore, they argued that applying new rules in ongoing lawsuits does not violate due process rights as long as those changes are procedural and do not alter substantive rights or obligations; here, allowing compensatory damages under Title VII merely changed remedies available rather than altering any party's liability or defenses.

Opinion written by Justice JPStevens
Decided: Apr 26, 1994
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms