Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

No person has a vested interest in any rule of law entitling him to insist that it shall remain unchanged for his benefit.' New York Cent. R.R. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 198. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 134. Legislative actions based on this principle, prospectively modifying or abrogating common law causes of action, have been judicially upheld. 

If a common-law right is taken away, nothing need be given in return. Prendergast v. Nelson, 199 Neb. 97. Because the Legislature can eliminate a common-law cause of action entirely, it can also alter the remedy for a cause of action without providing a replacement remedy, or quid pro quo. 

‘’’It is not to be presumed that the legislature intended to abrogate or modify a rule of the common law by the enactment of a statute upon the same subject; it is rather to be presumed that no change in the common law was intended unless the language employed clearly indicates such an intention. . . . The rules of common law are not to be changed by doubtful implication, nor overturned except by clear and unambiguous language.’” McKinney v. McKinney, [59 Wyo. ...

Register or login to access full content