Page:Aka v. Jefferson Hospital Association, Inc.pdf/2

628   of 1999 was consistent with Amendment 68 to the Arkansas Constitution, and the supreme court was no longer constrained by the common-law definition of person.
 * 1) C – A. C. . 68 – . – The import of Ark. Const. amend. 68 remains a compelling expression of Arkansas's public policy to the extent that it does not violate federal law; by federal constitutional interpretation, the state's interest in protecting the life of a fetus begins at viability.
 * 2) C –  – C. K . – Where the supreme court's decision in Chatelain v. Kelly, 322 Ark. 517, 910 S.W.2d 215 (1995), was premised upon avoiding inconsistency, the court, to be consistent with the current expression of legislative intent, was obliged to depart from Chatelain; as a general rule, the supreme court is bound to follow prior case law under the doctrine of stare decisis, a policy designed to lend predictability and stability to the law; precedent governs until it gives a result so patently wrong, so manifestly unjust, that a break becomes unavoidable; the test is whether adherence to the rule would result in great injury or injustice; here, the supreme court concluded that the expressed public policy of the General Assembly justified a break from precedent and, accordingly, overruled Chatelain v. Kelley.
 * 3) S –  – . – Retroactivity is a matter of legislative intent; generally, the supreme court observes a strict rule of statutory construction against retroactive operation and presumes that the legislature intends for statutes and amendments to be applied prospectively; this rule, however, does not ordinarily apply to procedural or remedial legislation.
 * 4) S –  – . – The cardinal principle for construing remedial legislation is to give appropriate regard to the spirit that promoted a statute's enactment, the mischief sought to be abolished, and the remedy proposed.
 * 5) S –  – . – Retroactive application is appropriate for remedial statutes that do not disturb vested rights, or create new obligations, but only supply a new or more appropriate remedy to enforce an existing right or obligation.
 * 6) C –  – . – When the supreme court overrules a prior decision and states the rule to be followed in the future, it also acknowledges the need to rely upon the validity of