area. While the annexation petition was pending, the General Assembly enacted § 31 — 12—118(2)(b), C.R.S.2003, which was effective immediately and required certain annexation proceedings to be held in abeyance. The trial court determined that the plain language of the revised statute applied to the pending suit. The G'i'eenwood Village court held that the trial court was correct in doing so and that it must proceed to apply the provisions contained in the revised statute. See Perry v. City of Denver, 27 Colo. 93, 59 P. 747 (1899)(pending annexations are subject to additional procedures of statutes enacted by the General Assembly after initiation of the pending but as yet uncompleted annexation); see also Gen. Tel. Co. v. Johnson, 103 Ill.2d 363, 83 Ill.Dec. 133, 469 N.E.2d 1067 (1984)(<HOLDING>); Schlenz v. Castle, 84 Ill.2d 196, 49 Ill.Dec.
holding legislatures intent to change tax liability retroactively was permissive exercise of legislative power holding that a statute which used the term applies retroactively demonstrated a legislative intent to negate section 302 holding that absent clear legislative intent court will not apply statute retroactively even when it creates new remedy holding statutes are not applied retroactively absent clear legislative intent holding change of word shall to may prior to bills passage indicates legislative intent to make purchases upon bids permissive rather than mandatory