Court of Appeals of Maryland· 4/2/1987

Mason v. State

Citations

522 A.2d 1344
309 Md. 215
1987 Md. LEXIS 214

How courts have described this case

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

stating that “a statute effecting a change in procedure only, and not in substantive rights, ordinarily applies to all actions whether accrued, pending or future, unless a contrary intention is expressed”
stating that the UPPA “is procedural in nature”
focusing on whether an amendment limiting a convict to three habeas petitions was intended to apply to a person who already had filed two habeas petitions before the new statute’s effective date
focusing on whether an amendment limiting a convict to three habeas petitions was intended to apply to a person who already had filed two habeas petitions before the new statute's effective date
“A statute affecting or impairing substantive rights will not operate retrospectively as to transactions, matters, and events not in litigation at the time the statute takes effect unless its language clearly so indicates.”
“Despite the presumption of prospectivity, a statute effecting a change in procedure only, and not in substantive rights, ordinarily applies to all actions whether accrued, pending or future, unless a contrary intention is expressed.... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Murphy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.