Colorado § 2-4-206 - Irreconcilable statutes passed at the same or different sessions.

§ 2-4-206. Irreconcilable statutes passed at the same or different sessions.

If statutes enacted at the same or different sessions of the general assembly are irreconcilable, the statute prevails which is latest in its effective date. If the irreconcilable statutes have the same effective date, the statute prevails which is latest in its date of passage.

Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1424, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 135-1-206.

Cross references: For harmonization of amendments to the same statute, see § 2-4-301.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

If two acts of the general assembly may be construed so that an inconsistency will be avoided, it is the duty of the court to so construe them. People v. James, 178 Colo. 401, 497 P.2d 1256 (1972).

Where apparent conflict exists between two statutory sections, court must attempt to harmonize the statutes to effectuate the intent of the general assembly and, to extent the two cannot be harmonized, the statute enacted last in time controls. Ortega v. Indus. Comm'n, 682 P.2d 511 (Colo. App. 1984); Ragsdale Bros. Roofing v. United Bank, 744 P.2d 750 (Colo. App. 1987); Brown v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 809 P.2d 1055 (Colo. App. 1990).

In resolving a conflict between two statutes, the court will look to the statutes as they exist and if the two provisions of the revised statutes are in conflict, the one enacted last prior to the adoption of the revision will control. Whisler v. Kuckler, 36 Colo. App. 200, 538 P.2d 477 (1975), rev'd on other grounds, 191 Colo. 260, 552 P.2d 18 (1976); In re Org. of Upper Bear Creek, 682 P.2d 61 (Colo. App. 1983), aff'd, 715 P.2d 799 (Colo. 1986).

Constructions that work a repeal by implication are not favored unless unavoidable. Chism v. People, 80 P.3d 293 (Colo. 2003).

Because repeals by implication are not favored, and only where there is a manifest inconsistency between a later and an earlier statute will a repeal by implication be held to have occurred. People v. James, 178 Colo. 401, 497 P.2d 1256 (1972).

Intent to repeal by implication to be effective must appear clearly, manifestly, and with cogent force. People v. Burke, 185 Colo. 19, 521 P.2d 783 (1974).

Court to give effect to legislative intent. A court's primary objective in interpreting assertedly conflicting statutes is to give effect to the legislative intent. Lininger v. City of Sheridan, 648 P.2d 1097 (Colo. App. 1982).

A specific legislative declaration that a later law repeals any provisions of an earlier law in conflict with the later law is superfluous since a later law automatically repeals an earlier law which conflicts with it. Whisler v. Kuckler, 36 Colo. App. 200, 538 P.2d 477 (1975), rev'd on other grounds, 191 Colo. 260, 552 P.2d 18 (1976).

Statute that is specific in its terms is not necessarily repealed by later statute which is in general terms. People v. Burke, 185 Colo. 19, 521 P.2d 783 (1974).

Statutes which are pari materia must be construed together. In re Org. of Upper Bear Creek, 682 P.2d 61 (Colo. App. 1983), aff'd, 715 P.2d 799 (Colo. 1986).

Statutes which are in pari materia should be reconciled if possible. Lininger v. City of Sheridan, 648 P.2d 1097 (Colo. App. 1982).

And statutes which are in pari materia will not be construed to lead to absurdities. Colo. & S. Ry. v. District Court, 177 Colo. 162, 493 P.2d 657 (1972).

Statutes are to be construed in pari materia so as to give effect to the legislative intent and to avoid inconsistencies and absurdities. Whisler v. Kuckler, 36 Colo. App. 200, 538 P.2d 477 (1975), rev'd on other grounds, 191 Colo. 260, 552 P.2d 18 (1976).

Therefore, where two statutes exist - one dealing with the right of the public utility to condemn the land of another utility, and another statute detailing the powers and duties of the public utilities commission in regulating such acquisitions - the statutes must be read in pari materia. Colo. & S. Ry. v. District Court, 177 Colo. 162, 493 P.2d 657 (1972).

Applied in Dye Constr. Co. v. Dolan, 41 Colo. App. 293, 589 P.2d 497 (1978); Colo. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. Jorgensen, 198 Colo. 275, 599 P.2d 869 (1979); City of Colo. Springs v. State, 626 P.2d 1122 (Colo. 1980); L.O.W. v. District Court, 623 P.2d 1253 (Colo. 1981); People v. Owens, 670 P.2d 1233 (Colo. 1983); Calhan Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. El Paso County, 686 P.2d 1321 (Colo. 1984); People v. Cisneros, 720 P.2d 982 (Colo. App. 1986); In re Pickering, 967 P.2d 164 (Colo. App. 1997); People v. J.J.H., 17 P.3d 159 (Colo. 2001).