reached in one case should be applied to those which follow, if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different.” Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 543 Pa. 578, 673 A.2d 898, 903 n. 9 (1996). 7 . As noted by the majority, the effect of the clarifying amendments would have been different had the legislature included a savings provision such that the amendments would apply to all cases on post-trial or on appeal. Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 731 A.2d 593. In Chamberlain, we held that the legislature’s amendments to Section 1420 of the County Code, 16 Pa.S.C. § 1420 (permitting a district attorney to appoint a deputy attorney-general as an assistant) enacted less than a year after this Court’s holding in Commonwealth v. Lawson, 548 Pa. 588, 699 A.2d 1246 (1997) (<HOLDING>) ‘‘eviscerated the holding and rationale of
holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term holding that the fact that an indiana prosecutor was later designated a special deputy united states attorney for purposes of the federal prosecution was insufficient to establish a sham prosecution holding that it would be improper for a united states district attorney to prosecute a defendant using information the prosecutor had obtained while acting as the accuseds private attorney holding that an attorney is a fiduciary under section 523a4 holding under section 1420 district attorney lacks authority to appoint deputy attorney general as an assistant prosecutor in a drug possession case