Rehurek v. Welcome
Decision Date | 18 May 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 27,CA-CIV,No. 2,A,27,2 |
Citation | 26 Ariz.App. 534,549 P.2d 1052 |
Parties | Dan W. REHUREK, Chet Foster, Roger Estes, M. V. Gomez, and Thomas E. Campbell, Jr., Members of the Board of Trustees of Douglas Elementary School District, and the Board of Trustees of the Douglas Elementary School District, Appellants, v. Jennie D. WELCOME, Appellee. 2040. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Appellants, the Board of Trustees of Douglas Elementary School and its individual members, appeal from a judgment ordering them to furnish a one-year contract to appellee Welcome.
Appellee began teaching in the Douglas schools in 1932. She turned 65 on September 9, 1975. Her application to complete the 1975--76 school year was rejected by the Board of Trustees on January 27, 1975, and she was offered a contract only through October 1, 1975.
There are two retirement statutes which appellants claim are in conflict. The first, A.R.S. § 15--1471, was adopted in 1953. It states:
A.R.S. §§ 38--741(13), State Retirement System and 38--781.01(23) State Retirement Plan, both adopted in 1975 and which are general statutes covering state employees provide:
"Normal retirement date' means the first day of the calendar month immediately following an employee's sixty-fifth birthday.'
A.R.S. § 15--1471 was never expressly repealed, but appellants claim it was impliedly repealed by A.R.S. § 38--741, et seq.
One rule of statutory construction is that separate statutes are to be construed so as to give meaning to both, if possible. State ex rel. Purcell v. Superior Court, 107 Ariz. 224, 485 P.2d 549 (1971); Finch v. State Department of Public Welfare, 80 Ariz. 226, 295 P.2d 846 (1956).
Another rule applicable here is that the specific governs over the general. A later general statute does not repeal by implication the prior specific statute unless the legislature's intent to repeal is manifest. The law does not favor repeal by implication. State v. Rice, 110 Ariz. 210, 516 P.2d 1222 (1973); Shirley v. Superior Court, 109 Ariz. 510, 513 P.2d 939 (1973); Rowland v. McBride, 35 Ariz. 511, 281 P. 207 (1929).
In State v. Rice, supra, the earlier statutes, A.R.S. §§ 13--652 and 13--653, set the punishment for lewd and lascivious acts and child molestation, allowing no possibility of parole until the minimum sentence had been served. A later statute, A.R.S. § 31--411, provided that any prisoner who had served one-third of his sentence could apply for parole. Our Supreme Court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Reim
-
State v. Denny
...unless it is clear from the inherent inconsistency of the juxtaposed statutes that the legislature intended repeal. Rehurek v. Welcome, 26 Ariz.App. 534, 549 P.2d 1052 (1976); State v. Ulmer, 21 Ariz.App. 378, 519 P.2d 867 (1974). See State ex rel. Larson v. Farley, 106 Ariz. 119, 471 P.2d ......
-
Smith v. MacDougall
...has been repealed by implication. State ex rel. Purcell v. Superior Court, 107 Ariz. 224, 485 P.2d 549 (1971); Rehurek v. Welcome, 26 Ariz.App. 534, 549 P.2d 1052 (1976). The predecessor to § 13-904 provided generally that "[a] sentence of imprisonment in the state prison for any term less ......
-
City Court of City of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert
...statutes that the legislature intended repeal. State ex rel. Larson v. Farley, 106 Ariz. 119, 471 P.2d 731 (1970); Rehurek v. Welcome, 26 Ariz.App. 534, 549 P.2d 1052 (1976). In support of its argument the State urges an irreconcilable conflict exists A.R.S. §§ 22-301 and 13-103(D). It cont......