Here’s an example from a US Supreme Court case, Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).
Final sentence of this paragraph: > Having concluded that the broad grant of jurisdiction to the bankruptcy > courts contained in 28 U. S. C. § 1471 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) is > unconstitutional, we must now determine whether our holding should be applied > retroactively to the effective date of the Act.[40]Our decision in Chevron > *88 Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971), sets forth the three > considerations recognized by our precedents as properly bearing upon the > issue of retroactivity. They are, first, whether the holding in question > "decid[ed] an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly > foreshadowed" by earlier cases, id., at 106; second, "whether retrospective > operation will further or retard [the] operation" of the holding in question, > id., at 107; and third, whether retroactive application "could produce > substantial inequitable results" in individual cases, ibid. In the present > cases, all of these considerations militate against the retroactive > application of our holding today. It is plain that Congress' broad grant of > judicial power to non-Art. III bankruptcy judges presents an unprecedented > question of interpretation of Art. III. It is equally plain that retroactive > application would not further the operation of our holding, and would surely > visit substantial injustice and hardship upon those litigants who relied upon > the Act's vesting of jurisdiction in the bankruptcy courts. We hold, > therefore, that our decision today shall apply only prospectively. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17768408304219861886&q=apply+prospectively&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33 > On Oct 25, 2018, at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > Can you point me to a legal usage online somewhere? All the examples I found > used it as meaning "sometime unspecified in the future" rather than "from this > point onward". (of course not important if you change the word!) > >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >> Prospectively is the legal opposite of retroactively. I will try to >> come up with another way of explaining it for the rule text, but >> that's what it generally means. >> >> -Aris >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote: >>> >>> The first time I read it I assumed the exact opposite, so it's definitely >>> ambiguous. >>> >>> -twg >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >>>> On Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:31 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I would read it to mean that the change in verdict does not operate >>>> retroactively to affect any game actions that have already taken place. >>>> So, for example, if a player’s vote is worth 0 because e has 3 blots, and >>>> it is later determined that the verdict imposing those 3 blots was >>>> inappropriate and is changed to a new verdict by this mechanism, then that >>>> doesn’t retroactively increase the player’s vote strength. It just removes >>>> the blots going forward. >>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: >>>>> Minor comment: I know the dictionary definition of the word, but I don't >>>>> know >>>>> what "prospectively" means in a practical sense in this rule (is there a >>>>> legal >>>>> term-of-art use of the word that I'm missing?) >>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL assign an appropriate >>>>>>> verdict, and SHOULD assign the appropriate verdict first-listed below >>>>>>> and identify all other appropriate verdicts. If the delivered verdict >>>>>>> is believed to be inappropriate, or if a verdict listed earlier below >>>>>>> is believed to be appropriate, then any player can change it to the >>>>>>> appropriate verdict first-listed below with 1 Agoran Consent. A player >>>>>>> SHOULD NOT do so unless it is clear that the new verdict is an >>>>>>> appropriate verdict, e.g. because a CFJ has determined that that is the >>>>>>> case. Once this occurs, any effects of the of the verdict, such as >>>>>>> blots, are prospectively undone. >>> >>> >>
