The general rule is that statutes, including those clarifying existing law, do not operate retrospectively. In Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232 [62 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 933 P.2d 507], the California Supreme Court held that, despite that general rule, when the Legislature promptly reacts to the emergence of a novel question of statutory interpretation by the courts, “[a]n amendment which in effect construes and clarifies a prior statute must be accepted as the legislative declaration of the meaning of the original act, where the amendment was adopted soon after the controversy arose concerning the proper interpretation of the statute.”
Miranda Rights Eroded Again: Unusual Case All The Way Around.
Joseph H., age 10, woke up early one morning and shot his father in the head as he slept on the sofa. Joseph was a difficult child. From the time he was three years old, his paternal grandmother could not babysit him because she could not control his outbursts.
Internet Games Just Like “One-Armed Bandits” (Slot Machines) & Violate California Law.
Internet cafes offer devices that resemble traditional casino-style slot machines in some ways and offer users the chance to win sweepstakes prizes, but because they employ modern technology, the devices differ from traditional slot machines in some ways. Pursuant to Penal Code section 330b, slot machines are illegal in California. In relevant part, the statute […]