stating that “ ‘[tjhere is a vested right in an accrued cause of action.... A law can be repealed by the law giver; but the rights which have been acquired under it, while it was in force, do not thereby cease. It would be an absolute injustice to abolish with the law all the effects it had produced. This is a principle of general jurisprudence; but a right to be within its protection must be a vested right.’ ”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “ ‘[tjhere is a vested right in an accrued cause of action.... A law can be repealed by the law giver; but the rights which have been acquired under it, while it was in force, do not thereby cease. It would be an absolute injustice to abolish with the law all the effects it had produced. This is a principle of general jurisprudence; but a right to be within its protection must be a vested right.’ ”
- stating that "`[t]here is a vested right in an accrued cause of action.... A law can be repealed by the law giver; but the rights which have been acquired under it, while it was in force, do not thereby cease. It would be an absolute injustice to abolish with the law all the effects it had produced. This is a principle of general jurisprudence; but a right to be within its protection must be a vested right.'"
- collecting cases noting that the Court has "consistently held that the Legislature's repeal of a law which created a right of action does not disturb any actions accrued thereunder"
- holding that the reinstatement of sovereign immunity cannot be applied to accrued causes of action
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Jenkins v. Hospital of Medical College of Pennsylvania, 401 Pa. Super. 604 (1991)
They contend, first, that Gibson is inapplicable to the present case because § 8305(a) eliminates only one of appellant’s possible causes of action against them, whereas Act 152 eliminated any possibility of recovery against the Commonwealth.5 While this is indeed a distinction between the two cases, it is not a legally meaningful distinction.
The opinion
LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I join Mr. Justice Roberts’ opinion, however, I would go further and declare Act 152 unconstitutional.
FLAHERTY, J., joins in this concurring opinion.