State v. Allen
Citations
- 14 Wash. 103
- 44 P. 121
- 1896 Wash. LEXIS 317
Syllabus
<p>REPEAL OP OLEOMARGARINE LAW — EFFECT ON PENDING PROSECUTION.</p> <p>Since the act of March 11, 1895, making it a misdemeanor for any person to have in his possession with intent to sell or serve to patrons any compound made in imitation of butter, effects a repeal of § 242 of the Penal Code upon the same subject matter, without any saving clause as to pending prosecutions, a defendant who has been convicted under §242 and has taken an appeal therefrom, is entitled tó a discharge by the repeal of said §242 pending his appeal.</p>
Judges: Andebs, Dünbak, Gokdon, Hoyt, Scott
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. ZornesWashington Supreme Court· 1970-05-14· cited 154×
- Libby v. Southern Pacific Co.Oregon Supreme Court· 1923-10-16· cited 26×
- State v. Ju NunOregon Supreme Court· 1908-08-25· cited 24×
- State v. HanoverWashington Supreme Court· 1909-10-29· cited 12×
- In re NolanWashington Supreme Court· 1899-07-20· cited 11×
- PALERMO AT LAKELAND, LLC v. City of Bonney LakeCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2008-09-03· cited 5×
- Ex parte BrownCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County· 1936-05-28
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.