STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PLAIN LANGUAGE When there is a dispute as to what a statute means, the courts have authority and a duty to interpret the meaning. The published decision of an Appellate Court, or Supreme Court, regarding the interpretation of a statute, is controlling on lower courts, unless or until, the Legislature amends the statute, or a higher court overturns the lower court's interpretation, (or another appellate court in another district issues a contrary, published opinion).
Because there have been disputes over the meaning of statutes since written law was invented, the courts have developed rules of "Statutory Construction" (aka rules for how to analyze and interpret written laws).
Administrative agencies must interpret statutes pursuant to the rules of statutory construction. Their interpretations are reviewable by courts of law
25 General Rules of Interpreting Statutes (there are many more) 1. When the language of the law is clear. 1 2. The literal meaning may be disregarded to avoid absurd results in light of the statute's provisions considered as a whole. 2 3. Terms should be given their usual and ordinary meaning. 3
4. Begin by assuming every word and phrase is significant. 4 5. A statute is to be considered as a whole, so inconsistencies are reconciled, and the statute has the effect to all its provisions. 5 6. Where general words follow a list of persons or things, the general words should be assumed to apply only to the persons or things of the same general kind specifically listed. 6 7. A list of persons or things in a statute preclude the inclusion by implication, of other things.
7
8. The Rule of Last Antecedent: Qualifying words are to be applied to the words or phrases immediately preceding, not other remote words. 8 The rule of last antecedent is usually applied in the absence of a comma separating those words and the modifying phrase. 9 The ordinary rules of grammar should be followed if they do not lead to absurdity. 10 9. The numbering of sections in statutes is a purely for convenience only, and should not be allowed to hinder the correct interpretation. 11 10. A general law, passed after a codified law, trumps the codified law, if in conflict. 12 11. The courts may consider the consequences that may flow from a proposed interpretation. They will interpret the law to promote the general purpose of the law (rather than to hinder that purpose). 13 12. Where a statute can be interpreted two different ways, the interpretation that leads to the more reasonable result, will be followed. 14 13. The court will not interpret a statute to have absurd consequences, when there is a more logical interpretation. 15 14. A statute will apply prospectively unless the statute clearly states it is to apply retroactively. 16 15. A specific provision takes precedence over a conflicting general provision, (except where the general statute is enacted after the specific statute and repeals it by implication). 17 16. Exceptions to a statute should be specific and not general. 18
17. The interpretation should harmonize one part of the statute with the other part, and with the purpose of the statute as a whole. 19 18. A statute should be interpreted in harmony with the statutory scheme. 20 19. statute should be interpreted to harmonize, with other laws relating to the same subject. 21 20. Specific Terms: 22 23 "includes" is a word of enlargement. "may" is purely permissive "notwithstanding" means 'without prevention' or obstruction from, or by, or 'in spite of' "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" makes that statute sui generis (controlling over both statutory and decisional law). "Or" indicates an alternative, but sometimes has the same meaning as "and." 21. The legislative history of a statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered when interpreting a statute. Evidence (other than the written statute itself), is not controlling. Legislative intent must be derived from the language of the statute. 24 22. The interpretation of a statute by the officials charged with its administration generally will be given great weight. 25 23. Public officials are compelled to obey the law. 26 24. Two different governmental entities may not exercise the same power for the same purpose within the same territory. 27 25. The Legislature's declaration of its intent in enacting a law, is not controlling. The court is required to look into the 'real intent' of the law, not just what the Legislature said was the purpose. 28
1
Great Lakes Properties, Inc. v, City of El Segundo, 19 Cal. 3d 152, 155; Holder v. Superior Court, 269 Cal. App. 2d 314, 317; Silver v. Brown, 63 Cal, 2d 841, 845.
2
Silver v. Brown, 63 Cal. 2d 841, 845. ex rel. Younger v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 3d 30, 43; Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 10 Cal. 3d 222, 230; Estate of Richartz, 45 Cal. 2d 292, 294. 4 People v. Woodhead, 43 Cal. 3d 1002, 1010; Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 10 Cal. 3d 222, 230. 5 Neuwald v. Brock, 12 Cal. 2d 662, 668 – 669; Hugh v, McCarthy, 54 Cal. 2d 273, 279 6 Treasure I.C.Co. v. St. Bd. of Equal., 19 Cal. 2d 181, 188. 7 Gonzales v. Concord Gardens Mobile Home Park Ltd., 90 Cal. App. 3d 871, 874; People v. Mancha, 39 Cal. App. 3d 703, 713; Wildlife Alive v, Chickering, 18 Cal 3d 190, 196. 8 Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland v. Williams, 9 Cal. 2d 381.389. 9 Wholesale T. Dealers v. National Etc. Co., 11 Cal. 3d 634, 659. 10 People v. One 1940 Chrysler Coupe, 48 Cal. 2d 546, 549. 11 Estate of Bull, 153 Cal. 715, 717. 12 People v. Bank of San Luis Obispo, 154 Cal. 194, 200. 13 Anaheim Union Water Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 26 Cal. App. 3d 95, 105. 14 Metropolitan Water Dist. V. Adams, 32 Cal. 2d 620, 630 – 631. 15 Warner v. Kenny, 27 Cal. 2d 627, 629; Gage v. Jordan, 23 Cal. 2d 794, 800; In Re Haines, 195 Cal. 605, 613. 16 In Re Estrada, 63 Cal. 2d 740, 746. 17 Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 3d 392, 420; Fleming v. Kent, 129 Cal. App. 3d 887 891; Div. of Labor Law Enforcement v. Moroney, 28 Cal. 2d 344, 346; Burks v. Monterey. 18 City of National City v. Fritz, 33 Cal. 2d 635 – 636; Corey v. Knight, 150 Cal. 2d 671, 680; Hammond v. McDonald, 49 Cal. App. 2d 671, 680. 19 People v. Black, 32 Cal. 3d 1, 5; Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc., 29 Cal. 3d 781, 788. 20 People v. Comingore, 20 Cal. 3d 142, 147. 21 Isobe v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 12 Cal. 3d 584, 590 – 591. 22 Paramount Gen. Hosp. Co. v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc., 42 Cal. App. 3d 496, 501. 23 Dinker v. Jenkins, 163 S. E. 2d 443, 454, reversed on other grounds, 16 S. E. 2d 799; In Re Marriage of Dover, 15 Cal. App. 3d 675, 678, at fn. 3;Houge v. Ford, 44 Cal. 2d 706, 712; Houge v. Ford, supra, at p. 712; Santos v. Dondero, 11 Cal. App. 2d 720, 713. 24 Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com., 43 Cal. 3d 1379, 1387; Fay v. District Court of Appeal, 200 Cal. 522, 537. 25 Hotel, Inc. v. California Employment Com., 24 Cal. 2d 753, 756 – 757. 26 Wirin v. Parker, 48 Cal. 2d 890, 894. 27 City of Redwood City v. Meyers, 18 Cal. App. 2d 11, 13. 28 California Emp. Etc. Com. V. Payne, 31 Cal. 2d 210, 214; Coulter v. Pool, 187 Cal. 181, 185 – 186. 3
