Commonwealth v. Arment

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an amendment to G.L.c. 123A violated the equal protection clause because not all prisoners convicted under the same statute were given the same treatment and the varying treatments served no legitimate state interest
• refusing to speculate on the impact of an amendment to G. L. c. 123A in the context of an equal protection analysis
• applying rational relationship test to strike down statute subjecting different classes of prisoners to different treatment depending on date of their offense for purposes of commitment as sexually dangerous persons
• requiring defendant to be in the class of persons harmed by amendment
• “State action violates equal protection if it subjects persons to classification resulting in different treatment . . . , and if . . . there is no rational relationship between the line drawn and a legitimate State interest . . .”
• “a sexual assault while in custody”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).