saving clause in Rhode Island

1999As we have stated, "[i]ts very purpose was to save the necessity of the burdensome formality of attaching an identical saving clause to all repealing legislation." See Lewis, 91 R.I. at 115 , 161 A.2d at 212 (quoting Ackerly v. Shepherd, 210 N.W. 476, 476 (1926)).

1999As we have stated, "[i]ts very purpose was to save the necessity of the burdensome formality of attaching an identical saving clause to all repealing legislation." See Lewis, 91 R.I. at 115 , 161 A.2d at 212 (quoting Ackerly v. Shepherd, 210 N.W. 476, 476 (1926)).

1983Id. at 74 , 337 A.2d at 889 .

1983Id. at 74 , 337 A.2d at 889 .

1962American Can Co. v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 491 .

1960In the case of Simborski v. Wheeler, 121 Conn. 195, 199 , the Connecticut court said concerning these statutes, “In effect they attach to every act repealing a statute within their purview a saving clause * * * under which the repealed statute still remains in full effect as regards any matter covered by it.” The purpose for which this type of legislation has been enacted is stated succinctly in State ex rel.

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1957In support of that claim he relies upon the well-recognized principle that, in the absence of a saving clause, legislation which is dependent upon or subsidiary to a constitutional provision which has been repealed falls with such provision, and he cites State v. Tonks, 15 R.I. 385 , 5 A. 636 ; Williams v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 278 U.S. 235 , 49 S.Ct. 115 , 73 L.Ed. 287 ; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 264 U.S. 286 , 44 S.Ct. 323 , 68 L.Ed. 686 ; Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R.R., 295 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 758 , 79 L.Ed. 1468 ; Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 , 56 S.Ct. 855 ,

1929By Section09 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and by successive judiciary acts Congress has placed in the United States District Court “exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction . . . *480 saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” It has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court in numerous decisions that under the saving clause just quoted a suitor may properly seek a common law remedy in a state court having due regard for the distinction in admiralty between a common law

1929By Section09 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and by successive judiciary acts Congress has placed in the United States District Court “exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction . . . *480 saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” It has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court in numerous decisions that under the saving clause just quoted a suitor may properly seek a common law remedy in a state court having due regard for the distinction in admiralty between a common law

1929By Section09 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and by successive judiciary acts Congress has placed in the United States District Court “exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction . . . *480 saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” It has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court in numerous decisions that under the saving clause just quoted a suitor may properly seek a common law remedy in a state court having due regard for the distinction in admiralty between a common law

1892The defendants do not deny this rule, but contend that the peculiar circumstances of the present case should prevent its application; and they refer to a saving clause in the opinion in Kent v. Dunham, 106 Mass. 586, 591 , to the effect that special circumstances may furnish ground for an exception.