abatement doctrine in California

2023The abatement doctrine provides that, “Although the courts normally construe 15 statutes to operate prospectively, the courts correlatively hold under the common law that when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, ‘a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon.’ ” (Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829 .) This doctrine applies, however, only in “limited circumstances.” (Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1253 .) Where a statute

2023The abatement doctrine provides that, “Although the courts normally construe 15 statutes to operate prospectively, the courts correlatively hold under the common law that when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, ‘a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon.’ ” (Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829 .) This doctrine applies, however, only in “limited circumstances.” (Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1253 .) Where a statute

2023(Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles (1940) 15 Cal.2d 1,13 .)” (Zipperer, at p. 1023.) Where I part company with my colleagues is in the application of the abatement doctrine to this case.

2023(Southern Service Co., Ltd. v. Los Angeles (1940) 15 Cal.2d 1,13 .)” (Zipperer, at p. 1023.) Where I part company with my colleagues is in the application of the abatement doctrine to this case.

2023The abatement doctrine provides that, “Although the courts normally construe 15 statutes to operate prospectively, the courts correlatively hold under the common law that when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, ‘a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon.’ ” (Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829 .) This doctrine applies, however, only in “limited circumstances.” (Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1253 .) Where a statute

2023The abatement doctrine provides that, “Although the courts normally construe 15 statutes to operate prospectively, the courts correlatively hold under the common law that when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, ‘a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon.’ ” (Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829 .) This doctrine applies, however, only in “limited circumstances.” (Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1253 .) Where a statute

2023The abatement doctrine provides that, “Although the courts normally construe 15 statutes to operate prospectively, the courts correlatively hold under the common law that when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, ‘a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon.’ ” (Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829 .) This doctrine applies, however, only in “limited circumstances.” (Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1253 .) Where a statute

2023The abatement doctrine provides that, “Although the courts normally construe 15 statutes to operate prospectively, the courts correlatively hold under the common law that when a pending action rests solely on a statutory basis, and when no rights have vested under the statute, ‘a repeal of such a statute without a saving clause will terminate all pending actions based thereon.’ ” (Governing Board v. Mann (1977) 18 Cal.3d 819, 829 .) This doctrine applies, however, only in “limited circumstances.” (Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1253 .) Where a statute

2023Accordingly, the abatement doctrine does not apply, and we apply the ordinary rule of prospective statutory construction. 16 Our conclusion is consistent with Krause v. Rarity (1930) 210 Cal. 644 , and with Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112 , overruled on other grounds in Z.B., N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175 .

2023Accordingly, the abatement doctrine does not apply, and we apply the ordinary rule of prospective statutory construction. 16 Our conclusion is consistent with Krause v. Rarity (1930) 210 Cal. 644 , and with Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112 , overruled on other grounds in Z.B., N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175 .

2023Accordingly, the abatement doctrine does not apply, and we apply the ordinary rule of prospective statutory construction. 16 Our conclusion is consistent with Krause v. Rarity (1930) 210 Cal. 644 , and with Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112 , overruled on other grounds in Z.B., N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175 .

2023Accordingly, the abatement doctrine does not apply, and we apply the ordinary rule of prospective statutory construction. 16 Our conclusion is consistent with Krause v. Rarity (1930) 210 Cal. 644 , and with Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112 , overruled on other grounds in Z.B., N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175 .

2023Where two statutory construction tools operate in similar contexts and result in opposite outcomes, it is unsurprising that the 6 For instance, in People v. Bank of San Luis Obispo (1910) 159 Cal. 65 , our Supreme Court recited the abatement doctrine in considering the retroactive effect of a repealed statute that previously allowed the Attorney General to seek a decree declaring a bank insolvent.

2023Where two statutory construction tools operate in similar contexts and result in opposite outcomes, it is unsurprising that the 6 For instance, in People v. Bank of San Luis Obispo (1910) 159 Cal. 65 , our Supreme Court recited the abatement doctrine in considering the retroactive effect of a repealed statute that previously allowed the Attorney General to seek a decree declaring a bank insolvent.

2023Accordingly, the abatement doctrine does not apply, and we apply the ordinary rule of prospective statutory construction. 16 Our conclusion is consistent with Krause v. Rarity (1930) 210 Cal. 644 , and with Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112 , overruled on other grounds in Z.B., N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175 .

2023Accordingly, the abatement doctrine does not apply, and we apply the ordinary rule of prospective statutory construction. 16 Our conclusion is consistent with Krause v. Rarity (1930) 210 Cal. 644 , and with Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112 , overruled on other grounds in Z.B., N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175 .

2021We agree with the former argument and therefore need not reach the latter.7 6 Appellant cites to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94 , which upheld an abuse of process action against a collection agency for its alleged practice of filing actions in multiple improper venues.

2015At the abatement hearing, plaintiffs repeatedly asserted these rules violated their constitutional rights, and that they were “entitled to all the due process requirements as would apply in a criminal proceeding.” With respect to the substantive matters addressed at the abatement hearing, plaintiffs asserted they had a protected grandfathered use of their property pursuant to Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533 .

2015Plaintiffs fail to explain the basis for their argument other than to cite to Clark, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th 1152 , and Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017 .

2015Plaintiffs fail to explain the basis for their argument other than to cite to Clark, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th 1152 , and Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017 .

2015Plaintiffs fail to explain the basis for their argument other than to cite to Clark, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th 1152 , and Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017 .

2002(See People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1143 , 240 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 742 P.2d 1306 , Craig v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 69, 77 , 161 Cal.Rptr. 19 .) However, legislative declarations of a statute's meaning are neither binding nor conclusive in construing a statute because the interpretation of a statute is an exercise of the judicial power assigned to the courts. ( Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232, 244 , 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 933 P.2d 507 .) The majority does not address and consider the doctrine of abatement.

2002(See People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1143 , 240 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 742 P.2d 1306 , Craig v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 69, 77 , 161 Cal.Rptr. 19 .) However, legislative declarations of a statute's meaning are neither binding nor conclusive in construing a statute because the interpretation of a statute is an exercise of the judicial power assigned to the courts. ( Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232, 244 , 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 933 P.2d 507 .) The majority does not address and consider the doctrine of abatement.

2002(See People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1143 , 240 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 742 P.2d 1306 , Craig v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 69, 77 , 161 Cal.Rptr. 19 .) However, legislative declarations of a statute's meaning are neither binding nor conclusive in construing a statute because the interpretation of a statute is an exercise of the judicial power assigned to the courts. ( Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232, 244 , 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 933 P.2d 507 .) The majority does not address and consider the doctrine of abatement.

2002(See People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1143 , 240 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 742 P.2d 1306 , Craig v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 69, 77 , 161 Cal.Rptr. 19 .) However, legislative declarations of a statute's meaning are neither binding nor conclusive in construing a statute because the interpretation of a statute is an exercise of the judicial power assigned to the courts. ( Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232, 244 , 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 933 P.2d 507 .) The majority does not address and consider the doctrine of abatement.

2002(See People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1143 , 240 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 742 P.2d 1306 , Craig v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 69, 77 , 161 Cal.Rptr. 19 .) However, legislative declarations of a statute's meaning are neither binding nor conclusive in construing a statute because the interpretation of a statute is an exercise of the judicial power assigned to the courts. ( Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232, 244 , 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 933 P.2d 507 .) The majority does not address and consider the doctrine of abatement.

2002(See People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1143 , 240 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 742 P.2d 1306 , Craig v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 69, 77 , 161 Cal.Rptr. 19 .) However, legislative declarations of a statute's meaning are neither binding nor conclusive in construing a statute because the interpretation of a statute is an exercise of the judicial power assigned to the courts. ( Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232, 244 , 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 933 P.2d 507 .) The majority does not address and consider the doctrine of abatement.

2002When the doctrine of abatement applies, a sentence imposed under the old statute is considered unauthorized, thus, the issue of abatement may be raised for the first time on appeal. ( People v. Nasalga, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 789, fn. 4 , 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 910 P.2d 1380 ; People v. Roman (2001) 92 Cal. App.4th 141 , 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 553 .) When the rules of statutory construction are applied in conjunction with the doctrine of abatement, a different result from that reached by the majority is dictated, as set forth, post.

2002When the doctrine of abatement applies, a sentence imposed under the old statute is considered unauthorized, thus, the issue of abatement may be raised for the first time on appeal. ( People v. Nasalga, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 789, fn. 4 , 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 910 P.2d 1380 ; People v. Roman (2001) 92 Cal. App.4th 141 , 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 553 .) When the rules of statutory construction are applied in conjunction with the doctrine of abatement, a different result from that reached by the majority is dictated, as set forth, post.

2002The majority does not (1) address the doctrine of abatement, (2) apply the rule of lenity, (3) adhere to well-established rules of statutory construction, and (4) analyze In re Scoggins, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th 650 , 114 Cal. Rptr.2d 508 .

2002The majority does not (1) address the doctrine of abatement, (2) apply the rule of lenity, (3) adhere to well-established rules of statutory construction, and (4) analyze In re Scoggins, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th 650 , 114 Cal. Rptr.2d 508 .

2002Measures adopted through the initiative process are subject to the ordinary rules and canons of statutory construction. ( Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1212 , 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 .) Whether a ballot initiative is to apply to pending cases is, in part, a question of statutory interpretation. ( Herniosa Beach Stop Oil Coalition v. City of Hermosa Beach (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 534, 548 , 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 .) Section 8 of the initiative measure adopted as Proposition 36 clearly states that it applies "prospectively." However, there is no indication in the propos

2002Measures adopted through the initiative process are subject to the ordinary rules and canons of statutory construction. ( Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1212 , 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 .) Whether a ballot initiative is to apply to pending cases is, in part, a question of statutory interpretation. ( Herniosa Beach Stop Oil Coalition v. City of Hermosa Beach (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 534, 548 , 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 .) Section 8 of the initiative measure adopted as Proposition 36 clearly states that it applies "prospectively." However, there is no indication in the propos

2002Measures adopted through the initiative process are subject to the ordinary rules and canons of statutory construction. ( Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1212 , 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 .) Whether a ballot initiative is to apply to pending cases is, in part, a question of statutory interpretation. ( Herniosa Beach Stop Oil Coalition v. City of Hermosa Beach (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 534, 548 , 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 .) Section 8 of the initiative measure adopted as Proposition 36 clearly states that it applies "prospectively." However, there is no indication in the propos

2002Measures adopted through the initiative process are subject to the ordinary rules and canons of statutory construction. ( Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1212 , 246 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 753 P.2d 585 .) Whether a ballot initiative is to apply to pending cases is, in part, a question of statutory interpretation. ( Herniosa Beach Stop Oil Coalition v. City of Hermosa Beach (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 534, 548 , 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 447 .) Section 8 of the initiative measure adopted as Proposition 36 clearly states that it applies "prospectively." However, there is no indication in the propos

1997The leading case in this court is Fowden v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co. (1906) 149 Cal. 151 [ 86 P. 178 ] (hereafter Fowden ).

1997The leading case in this court is Fowden v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co. (1906) 149 Cal. 151 [ 86 P. 178 ] (hereafter Fowden ).