How have courts interpreted section 17,000 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and how have they interpreted the law?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Cooke v. Superior Court, 213 Cal.App.3d 401, 261 Cal.Rptr. 706 (Cal. App. 1989):
At the same time, we must reject petitioners' contention they need good teeth and a picture-perfect smile in order to succeed in the workplace. Courts must give statutes a reasonable construction which conforms to the apparent purpose and intention of the lawmakers. (Webster v. Superior
Page 715
The County also contends Propositions 13 and 4 (enacting articles XIIIA and XIIIB to the state Constitution) impliedly repealed section 17000 insofar as it may require the County to spend beyond its fiscal means. We disagree. Repeals by implication are disfavored by the law. (People v. Siko (1988) 45 Cal.3d 820, 824, 248 Cal.Rptr. 110, 755 P.2d 294.) This is especially so where, as here, the extent of the repeal is amorphous and must depend on the fiscal condition of each affected county.
III. Resolution No. 89-011 Meets the Level of Care Required By Statute
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
