discussing the decline of the Aonce- popular >void ab initio= rule@ and following the Arecent trend in adopting a test of reasonableness and good faith in determining the effect which the judicial invalidation of a statute or regulation should have on the rights and obligations of the parties who have taken action pursuant to an invalid provision@
How later courts described this case
- discussing the decline of the Aonce- popular >void ab initio= rule@ and following the Arecent trend in adopting a test of reasonableness and good faith in determining the effect which the judicial invalidation of a statute or regulation should have on the rights and obligations of the parties who have taken action pursuant to an invalid provision@
- discussing the decline of the "once-popular `void ab initio' rule" and following the "recent trend in adopting a test of reasonableness and good faith in determining the effect which the judicial invalidation of a statute or regulation should have on the rights and obligations of the parties who have taken action pursuant to an invalid provision"
- “ ‘[a] third party seeking to hold a principal on the apparent authority of the agent must show acts or statements of the principal known to the third party and on which the third party reasonably relied to his detriment.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
YEAGLEY, Associate Judge,
Retired, concurring:
I concur in the result. I have no problem with the rejection of the void ab initio rule of Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 , 6 S.Ct. 1121 , 30 L.Ed. 178 (1886), but I do have some difficulty with the circular reasoning of the majority that brings it back to the same result as Norton . To hold retroactively that the Rent Control Regulation under which lower rents were set should not be binding on the parties during the period it was in effect, for the same reason the law was invalidated in AOBA I, is the same as invoking the void ab initio rule. Since the decision reaches a result the court refused to reach in either AOBA I or II, the holding here should be clearly restricted to the equities before us.