of its revisory power to afford a party relief from an enrolled judgment is thus in the nature of an equitable remedy. By amending F.L. § 5-1038(a) to add a new basis on which the court may exercise its power to grant relief from an enrolled judgment of paternity, the General Assembly affected a remedy by broadening it. So long as by doing so it did not create a new substantive right or disturb a preexisting substantive right, the statutory amendment is remedial and is presumed to apply retrospectively. We will return to that topic shortly. An enactment also may be regarded as “remedial in nature” if its object is to correct existing law, “to redress existing grievances[,] and to introduce regulations conducive to the public good.” State v. Barnes, 273 Md. 195, 208, 328 A.2d 737 (1974)(<HOLDING>). As such, remedial statutes “are to be
recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce holding remedial in nature the interstate agreement on detainers act of 1965 holding after lopez that the interstate nexus element of the hobbs act still requires the government to show only a minimal connection to interstate commerce holding that in the context of hobbs act prosecutions  an indictment need not set forth facts alleging how interstate commerce was affected nor otherwise state any theory of interstate impact