State v. MacArelli

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that refusal to apply ameliorative change to defendant whose ease has not been reduced to final judgment “would amount to nothing more than arbitrary retribution in contravention of the obvious legislative purpose behind the mitigation of the penalty ”
• holding that refusal to apply ameliorative change to defendant whose case has not been reduced to final judgment \would amount to nothing more than arbitrary retribution in contravention of the obvious legislative purpose behind the mitigation of the penalty \
• adopting Oliver’s “sound judicial philosophy” because any other interpretation “would amount to nothing more than arbitrary retribution in contravention of the obvious legislative purpose behind the mitigation of the penalty” (emphasis added)
• adopting Oliver's \sound judicial philosophy\ because any other interpretation \would amount to nothing more than arbitrary retribution in contravention of the obvious legislative purpose behind the mitigation of the penalty\ (emphasis added)
• relying on the unique wording of the general savings clause directing the courts to look to the record for legislative intent with regard to specific statutes to overcome the presumption against retroactive application
• relying on the unique wording of the general savings clause directing the courts to look to the record for legislative intent with regard to specific statutes to overcome the presumption against retroactive application

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).