implied repeal doctrine in California

2004Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1, 7 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 547 P.2d 449 .) When two statutes concern the same subject matter and cannot be reconciled with each other, the more recent statute is deemed to have repealed the first statute by implication under the doctrine of implied repeal. ( In re Thierry S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744 , 139 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 566 P.2d 610 .) However, the law shuns repeal by implication and, if possible, courts must maintain the integrity of both statutes. ( Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 569 , 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 , 950 P.2d 1086

2004(Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 569 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 , 950 P.2d 1086 ].) For this reason, the implied repeal doctrine is properly invoked only when (1) two potentially conflicting statutes cannot be harmonized and are “ ‘irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation . . .’ ” (In re Thierry S., supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 744 , quoting In re White (1969) 1 Cal.3d 207, 212 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 780 , 460 P.2d 980 ]) or (2) the later provision gives “undebatable evidence of an intent to supersede the earlier”

2006First, “[a]s a principle of construction, it is well established that a specific provision prevails over a general one relating to the same subject.” (Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1524 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 621 ].) The second canon invoked by Pacific Lumber, the doctrine of implied repeal, applies “ ‘[w]hen two or more statutes . . . concern the same subject matter and are in irreconcilable conflict. . . .’ [Citation.] In such cases, ‘the doctrine of implied repeal provides that the most recently enacted statute expre

2006First, “[a]s a principle of construction, it is well established that a specific provision prevails over a general one relating to the same subject.” (Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1524 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 621 ].) The second canon invoked by Pacific Lumber, the doctrine of implied repeal, applies “ ‘[w]hen two or more statutes . . . concern the same subject matter and are in irreconcilable conflict. . . .’ [Citation.] In such cases, ‘the doctrine of implied repeal provides that the most recently enacted statute expre

2007A, p. ii.) The use of the plural "restrictions," combined with the absence of a specific reference to article VII, indicates an intention to remove all such restrictions, whether constitutional or statutory. ( People v. Rizo, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 685 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 375 , 996 P.2d 27 [in construing the language of an initiative, the reviewing court gives words their ordinary meaning].) Several of the statutory provisions added to the Government Code by the initiative also support the application of the doctrine of implied repeal.

2007A, p. ii.) The use of the plural "restrictions," combined with the absence of a specific reference to article VII, indicates an intention to remove all such restrictions, whether constitutional or statutory. ( People v. Rizo, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 685 , 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 375 , 996 P.2d 27 [in construing the language of an initiative, the reviewing court gives words their ordinary meaning].) Several of the statutory provisions added to the Government Code by the initiative also support the application of the doctrine of implied repeal.

2004(Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 569 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 , 950 P.2d 1086 ].) For this reason, the implied repeal doctrine is properly invoked only when (1) two potentially conflicting statutes cannot be harmonized and are “ ‘irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation . . .’ ” (In re Thierry S., supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 744 , quoting In re White (1969) 1 Cal.3d 207, 212 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 780 , 460 P.2d 980 ]) or (2) the later provision gives “undebatable evidence of an intent to supersede the earlier”

2004(Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 569 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 , 950 P.2d 1086 ].) For this reason, the implied repeal doctrine is properly invoked only when (1) two potentially conflicting statutes cannot be harmonized and are “ ‘irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation . . .’ ” (In re Thierry S., supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 744 , quoting In re White (1969) 1 Cal.3d 207, 212 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 780 , 460 P.2d 980 ]) or (2) the later provision gives “undebatable evidence of an intent to supersede the earlier”

2004Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1, 7 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 547 P.2d 449 .) When two statutes concern the same subject matter and cannot be reconciled with each other, the more recent statute is deemed to have repealed the first statute by implication under the doctrine of implied repeal. ( In re Thierry S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744 , 139 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 566 P.2d 610 .) However, the law shuns repeal by implication and, if possible, courts must maintain the integrity of both statutes. ( Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 569 , 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 , 950 P.2d 1086

2004Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1, 7 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 547 P.2d 449 .) When two statutes concern the same subject matter and cannot be reconciled with each other, the more recent statute is deemed to have repealed the first statute by implication under the doctrine of implied repeal. ( In re Thierry S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744 , 139 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 566 P.2d 610 .) However, the law shuns repeal by implication and, if possible, courts must maintain the integrity of both statutes. ( Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 569 , 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 731 , 950 P.2d 1086

2004Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1, 7 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 547 P.2d 449 ].) When two statutes concern the same subject matter and cannot be reconciled with each other, the more recent statute is deemed to have repealed the first statute by implication under the doctrine of implied repeal.

2004Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1, 7 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 547 P.2d 449 ].) When two statutes concern the same subject matter and cannot be reconciled with each other, the more recent statute is deemed to have repealed the first statute by implication under the doctrine of implied repeal.

2022(Cf. People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 198-199 [declining to find an implied repeal of the rule that error in a criminal case is not reversible unless it prejudiced the defendant’s substantial rights]; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 771 [declining to find an implied repeal of the doctrine of imperfect self-defense].) It is just a statute like any other, and it (or rather its predecessor) was 41 enacted in the 1980s.

2022(Cf. People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 198-199 [declining to find an implied repeal of the rule that error in a criminal case is not reversible unless it prejudiced the defendant’s substantial rights]; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 771 [declining to find an implied repeal of the doctrine of imperfect self-defense].) It is just a statute like any other, and it (or rather its predecessor) was 41 enacted in the 1980s.

2022(Cf. People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 198-199 [declining to find an implied repeal of the rule that error in a criminal case is not reversible unless it prejudiced the defendant’s substantial rights]; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 771 [declining to find an implied repeal of the doctrine of imperfect self-defense].) It is just a statute like any other, and it (or rather its predecessor) was 41 enacted in the 1980s.

2022(Cf. People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183, 198-199 [declining to find an implied repeal of the rule that error in a criminal case is not reversible unless it prejudiced the defendant’s substantial rights]; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 771 [declining to find an implied repeal of the doctrine of imperfect self-defense].) It is just a statute like any other, and it (or rather its predecessor) was 41 enacted in the 1980s.

2006First, “[a]s a principle of construction, it is well established that a specific provision prevails over a general one relating to the same subject.” (Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1524 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 621 ].) The second canon invoked by Pacific Lumber, the doctrine of implied repeal, applies “ ‘[w]hen two or more statutes . . . concern the same subject matter and are in irreconcilable conflict. . . .’ [Citation.] In such cases, ‘the doctrine of implied repeal provides that the most recently enacted statute expre

2006First, “[a]s a principle of construction, it is well established that a specific provision prevails over a general one relating to the same subject.” (Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1524 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 621 ].) The second canon invoked by Pacific Lumber, the doctrine of implied repeal, applies “ ‘[w]hen two or more statutes . . . concern the same subject matter and are in irreconcilable conflict. . . .’ [Citation.] In such cases, ‘the doctrine of implied repeal provides that the most recently enacted statute expre

2006The former doctrine only applies *943 when an irreconcilable conflict exists between the general and specific provisions (People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 385 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 ]; Medical Board v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1013-1014 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 ]); the latter, when the two acts are “ ‘ “ ‘irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation.

2006The former doctrine only applies *943 when an irreconcilable conflict exists between the general and specific provisions (People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 385 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 ]; Medical Board v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1013-1014 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 ]); the latter, when the two acts are “ ‘ “ ‘irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation.

2006The former doctrine only applies *943 when an irreconcilable conflict exists between the general and specific provisions (People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 385 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 ]; Medical Board v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1013-1014 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 ]); the latter, when the two acts are “ ‘ “ ‘irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation.

2006The former doctrine only applies *943 when an irreconcilable conflict exists between the general and specific provisions (People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 385 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 ]; Medical Board v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1013-1014 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 381 ]); the latter, when the two acts are “ ‘ “ ‘irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation.

1998While, like the preemption doctrine, the doctrine of implied repeal reflects the primacy of legislative intent (see generally, English v. General Electric Co. (1990) 496 U.S. 72, 79 [ 110 S.Ct. 2270, 2275 , 110 L.Ed.2d 65 ]; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal.3d 26, 43 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 584 , 812 P.2d 931 ]), the implied repeal doctrine applies “[w]hen two or more statutes [enacted by the same legislature] concern the same subject matter and are in irreconcilable conflict . . . .” (In re Thierry S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 566 P.2d 610 ].) In such cases, “the

1998While, like the preemption doctrine, the doctrine of implied repeal reflects the primacy of legislative intent (see generally, English v. General Electric Co. (1990) 496 U.S. 72, 79 [ 110 S.Ct. 2270, 2275 , 110 L.Ed.2d 65 ]; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal.3d 26, 43 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 584 , 812 P.2d 931 ]), the implied repeal doctrine applies “[w]hen two or more statutes [enacted by the same legislature] concern the same subject matter and are in irreconcilable conflict . . . .” (In re Thierry S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 566 P.2d 610 ].) In such cases, “the

1998While, like the preemption doctrine, the doctrine of implied repeal reflects the primacy of legislative intent (see generally, English v. General Electric Co. (1990) 496 U.S. 72, 79 [ 110 S.Ct. 2270, 2275 , 110 L.Ed.2d 65 ]; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal.3d 26, 43 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 584 , 812 P.2d 931 ]), the implied repeal doctrine applies “[w]hen two or more statutes [enacted by the same legislature] concern the same subject matter and are in irreconcilable conflict . . . .” (In re Thierry S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 566 P.2d 610 ].) In such cases, “the

1998While, like the preemption doctrine, the doctrine of implied repeal reflects the primacy of legislative intent (see generally, English v. General Electric Co. (1990) 496 U.S. 72, 79 [ 110 S.Ct. 2270, 2275 , 110 L.Ed.2d 65 ]; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal.3d 26, 43 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 584 , 812 P.2d 931 ]), the implied repeal doctrine applies “[w]hen two or more statutes [enacted by the same legislature] concern the same subject matter and are in irreconcilable conflict . . . .” (In re Thierry S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 708 , 566 P.2d 610 ].) In such cases, “the