§
Subdivision 1.Particular controls general.
When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. If the conflict between the two provisions be irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session and it shall be the manifest intention of the legislature that such general provision shall prevail.
§
Subd. 2.Clauses in same law.
When, in the same law, several clauses are irreconcilable, the clause last in order of date or position shall prevail.
§
Subd. 3.Laws passed at same session.
When the provisions of two or more laws passed during the same session of the legislature are irreconcilable, the law latest in date of final enactment, irrespective of its effective date, shall prevail from the time it becomes effective, except as otherwise provided in section 645.30.
§
Subd. 4.Laws passed at different sessions.
When the provisions of two or more laws passed at different sessions of the legislature are irreconcilable, the law latest in date of final enactment shall prevail.
Notes of Decisions
Torgelson v. . Real Prop. Known as 17138 880th Ave., Renville Cnty., 749 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 2008).
· cites it 12× “Minn. Stat. § 645.26 , subd. 1 (2006) ("When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in * * * another law, * * * the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision * * *.”
Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 645.26 (2010). . We have held that a claim arises when the cause of action accrues.”
State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “1983); see also Minn.Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2006) ("When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both.”
Reider v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist. No. 11, 728 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 2007).
· cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2006). The general provision here would be the discretionary provision allowing the appointment of a neutral physician with or without a request.”
Marriage of Clay v. Clay, 397 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 645.26 provides in pertinent part as follows: Subdivision 1.”
Mumm v. Mornson, 708 N.W.2d 475 (Minn. 2006).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2004). We therefore hold that the officers had a ministerial duty, imposed by section 7-405 of the Pursuit Policy, to discontinue their pursuit of Mornson because they knew Mornson's identity and knew she had not committed any of the listed…”
Abraham v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 4× “The district court relied on the rule of statutory construction that provides that if an irreconcilable conflict exists between a general provision of law and a specific provision of law, then the specific provision of law prevails, unless the general provision was enacted later…”
Enright v. Lehmann, 735 N.W.2d 326 (Minn. 2007).
· cites it 4× ““When a general provision in a law is in conflict with á special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both.”
Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., Inc., 551 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1996).
· cites it 6× “However, while acknowledging the rule of statutory construction contained in Minn. Stat. § 645.26 , subd. 1 (1994), it chose to ignore it.”
Erlandson v. Kiffmeyer, 659 N.W.2d 724 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2002) (stating that when statutes are in conflict, particular statute prevails over the general).”
State v. Barrientos, 837 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 8× “2005) (quoting Minn.Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2004)). But, whenever possible, potentially conflicting general and special provisions “shall be construed .”
— Minn. Stat. § 645.26(1) — 2 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 645.26(4) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.