With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 305, 307 (Minn.App.1994) (court will apply statute prospectively absent clear indication of legislature’s intent to give statutory amendment retroactive application). The legislature did not include a special enactment date nor did it prescribe retroactive application of the statute. In fact, the amendment to the Act took effect on August 1,1996, after appellants had brought this action and received a ruling from the court. See Minn.Stat. § 645.31 (1996) (legislative amendments “shall be construed as effective only from the date when the amendment became effective”). Consequently, the fact that the Act now establishes an employee’s right to recover gratuities does not further appellants’ claim. See In re Wage & Hour Violations of Holly Inn, Inc., 386 N.W.2d 305, 312 (Minn.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Appellants next interpret Holly Inn to

A: holding miranda decision does not apply retroactively
B: holding that a statute which used the term applies retroactively demonstrated a legislative intent to negate section 302
C: holding that absent clear legislative intent court will not apply statute retroactively even when it creates new remedy
D: holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively
C.