- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
That's a pretty messy way of doing that. For instance, what exactly would trigger it? Any arguments in the case at all? An interlocutory appeal? Only filing another cause of action in the same suit? So taking that clause in what seems like its most basic sense, it wouldn't apply to the defamation causes already asserted, but the old (to be repealed) statutes would still apply to those.I was originally wrong. Randazza is correct. The savings clause changes how its applied as I tried to show in my answer above.
It'd seem to avoid the constitutional issue I was worried about at least.
And fool me thinking Randazza would be outright wrong.