Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1910–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2018“Unless the later statutes clearly manifest a different intention, this general saving clause is deemed a part of every repealing statute as if expressly inserted therein, and hence renders unnecessary the incorporation of an individual saving clause in each statute which amends or repeals an existing penal statute.” State v. Hanlen, 193 Wash. 494, 497 , 76 P.2d 316 (1938); see also State v. Walker, 7 Wn. 2000“Unless the later statutes clearly manifest a different intention, this general saving clause is deemed a part of every repealing statute as if expressly inserted therein, and hence renders unnecessary the incorporation of an individual saving clause in each statute which amends or repeals an existing penal statute.” State v. Hanlen, 193 Wash. 494, 497 , 76 P.2d 316 (1938); see also State v. Walker, 7 Wn. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hanlen
green
2 sentences2018“Unless the later statutes clearly manifest a different intention, this general saving clause is deemed a part of every repealing statute as if expressly inserted therein, and hence renders unnecessary the incorporation of an individual saving clause in each statute which amends or repeals an existing penal statute.” State v. Hanlen, 193 Wash. 494, 497 , 76 P.2d 316 (1938); see also State v. Walker, 7 Wn. 2018“Unless the later statutes clearly manifest a different intention, this general saving clause is deemed a part of every repealing statute as if expressly inserted therein, and hence renders unnecessary the incorporation of an individual saving clause in each statute which amends or repeals an existing penal statute.” State v. Hanlen, 193 Wash. 494, 497 , 76 P.2d 316 (1938); see also State v. Walker, 7 Wn. | 5 | 1972–2018 |
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence2018App. 878, 882 , 503 P.2d 128 (1972) [rev’d, 82 Wn.2d 851 , 517 P.2d 919 (1973)]. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ross
green
1 sentence2016(Emphasis added.) This general saving clause “ ‘is deemed a part of every repealing statute as if expressly inserted *234 therein, and hence renders unnecessary the incorporation of an individual saving clause in each statute which amends or repeals an existing penal statute.’ ” State v. Ross, 152 Wn.2d 220, 237 , 95 P.3d 1225 (2004) (quoting State v. Hanlen, 193 Wash. 494, 497 , 76 P.2d 316 (1938)). ¶8 We strictly construe RCW 10.01.040 because it is in derogation of the common law. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Ross
green
1 sentence2016(Emphasis added.) This general saving clause “ ‘is deemed a part of every repealing statute as if expressly inserted *234 therein, and hence renders unnecessary the incorporation of an individual saving clause in each statute which amends or repeals an existing penal statute.’ ” State v. Ross, 152 Wn.2d 220, 237 , 95 P.3d 1225 (2004) (quoting State v. Hanlen, 193 Wash. 494, 497 , 76 P.2d 316 (1938)). ¶8 We strictly construe RCW 10.01.040 because it is in derogation of the common law. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Kane
green
1 sentence2016State v. Kane, 101 Wn. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United Business Commission v. City of San Diego
green
2 sentences1983In United Business Comm'n v. San Diego, 91 Cal. App.3d 156, 171 , 154 Cal. Rptr. 263 (1979) (quoting 25 R.C.L. 940, § 193), the court noted: *474 And nothing less than a plain exception of existing cases or claims from the operation of the repealing act or a continuance of the same system of taxation under new regulations will save such cases or claims from the effect of the repeal. '" Second, "the only rights within the protection of the saving statute [a general saving clause] ... are `vested rights,'..." Pratt v. Hayes, 20 Ill. 1983In United Business Comm'n v. San Diego, 91 Cal. App.3d 156, 171 , 154 Cal. Rptr. 263 (1979) (quoting 25 R.C.L. 940, § 193), the court noted: *474 And nothing less than a plain exception of existing cases or claims from the operation of the repealing act or a continuance of the same system of taxation under new regulations will save such cases or claims from the effect of the repeal. '" Second, "the only rights within the protection of the saving statute [a general saving clause] ... are `vested rights,'..." Pratt v. Hayes, 20 Ill. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Pratt v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1983In United Business Comm'n v. San Diego, 91 Cal. App. 3d 156, 171 , 154 Cal. Rptr. 263 (1979) (quoting 25 R.C.L. 940, § 193), the court noted: And nothing less than a plain exception of existing cases or claims from the operation of the repealing act or a continuance of the same system of taxation under new regulations will save such cases or claims from the effect of the repeal.'" Second, "the only rights within the protection of the saving statute [a general saving clause] . . . are 'vested rights,' . ." Pratt v. Hayes, 20 Ill. 1983In United Business Comm'n v. San Diego, 91 Cal. App.3d 156, 171 , 154 Cal. Rptr. 263 (1979) (quoting 25 R.C.L. 940, § 193), the court noted: *474 And nothing less than a plain exception of existing cases or claims from the operation of the repealing act or a continuance of the same system of taxation under new regulations will save such cases or claims from the effect of the repeal. '" Second, "the only rights within the protection of the saving statute [a general saving clause] ... are `vested rights,'..." Pratt v. Hayes, 20 Ill. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Cruz v. Martínez
green
1 sentence1938This proposition is too plain to *498 need the support of authorities; but there are authorities directly to the point. [Citing cases].” People v. McNulty, 93 Cal. 427 , 29 Pac. 61 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
People v. McNulty
green
1 sentence1938This proposition is too plain to *498 need the support of authorities; but there are authorities directly to the point. [Citing cases].” People v. McNulty, 93 Cal. 427 , 29 Pac. 61 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
State v. Fair
neutral
2 sentences1910The validity of this act has been sustained in State v. Fair, 35 Wash. 127 , 76 Pac. 731 , 102 Am. 1910The validity of this act has been sustained in State v. Fair, 35 Wash. 127 , 76 Pac. 731 , 102 Am. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.