Medford v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “ ‘[a]rrest’ is a technical term possessing a long, established history in the common law, and it would be inappropriate if jurors arbitrarily applied their personal definitions of arrest.”
• concluding that “arrest” had acquired technical meaning based on its established history in common law
• holding that “‘[a]rrest’ is a technical term possessing a long, established history in the common law, and it would be inappropriate if jurors arbitrarily applied their personal definitions of arrest”
• holding that “‘[a]rrest’ is a technical term possessing a long, established history in the common law, and it would be inappropriate if jurors arbitrarily applied their personal definitions of arrest.”
• providing that words not specially defined by the Legislature are to be understood as ordinary usage allows
• providing that words not specially defined by the Legislature are to be understood as ordinary usage allows

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).