...former employees was not anticipated at the time of actual employment. But our cases are clear that legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not...because it upsets otherwise settled expectations. * * * This is true even though the effect of the legislation is to impose a new duty or liability based...

...Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 US 1, 14 — 20 (1976). In Usery the Court stated: [O]ur cases are clear that legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not...because it upsets otherwise settled expectations, [citations omitted] This is true even though the effect of the legislation is to impose a new duty...

...Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 US 1, 14—20 (1976). In Usery the Court stated : [O]ur cases are clear that legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not...because it upsets otherwise settled expectations, [citations omitted] This is true even though the effect of the legislation is to impose a new duty...

...84 (1958). Very recently the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the general proposition that "legislative readjusting rights and burdens is not unlawful solely because it upsets otherwise settled expectation." Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.. 428 US 1, 16 (1976). In addition to making the retroactivity...

...to improve the present situation. The Court in Turner specifically found "that legislation adjusting rights and burdens is not unlawful solely because it upsets otherwise settled expectations. This is true even though the effect of the legislation is to impose 9 / a new duty or liability based...

...adjusting burdens and «O benefits of economic life have a presumption of constitutionality. ,3 (2) legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not...solely because it upsets otherwise settled expectations even though the effect is to impose a new duty or liability based on past acts;^° (3) retrospective...

...a mere real location of royalties. In another case the Court stated that "our cases are clear that legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not...because it upsets otherwise settled expectations."— As the 22/ See, eg , Goldstein v. California, 412 US 546, 562 TT973); see also Evans v. Jordan, 9 Cranch...

...former employees was not anticipated at the time of actual employment. But our cases are clear that legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not...because it upsets otherwise settled expectations. * ' * This is true even though the effect of the legislation is to impose a new duty or liability based...

...establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way....[0]ur cases are clear that legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not...because it upsets otherwise settled expectations. . .even though the effect of the legislation is to impose a new duty or liability based on past acts....

...after the institution of this proceeding. 205 See ICCF Expansion Plan, April 1991, cited in n.2, supra. readjusting rights and burdens is not unlawful solely...because it "upsets otherwise settled expectations" even if new duties or liabilities are imposed.206 66. VarTec also has not demonstrated that the Commission's...