X hits on this document

Word document

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT - page 17 / 29

82 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

17 / 29

Cal.App.2d 178, 180-181.)  This rule of statutory construction is applicable unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed in the statute or elsewhere.  (Fields v. Eu (1976) 18 Cal.3d 322, 332.)

Applying this maxim, we conclude that when the Legislature amended section 22658 to articulate its express intent to further public safety purposes by enacting subdivisions (l) and (k), but did not do so with respect to subdivision (i), it made an implicit legislative determination that the remaining provisions of section 22658, including the storage fee limitation in subdivision (i), were not enacted in response to public safety concerns.  "Courts should generally 'assume that the Legislature knew what it was saying and meant what it said.'  [Citation.] . . . And this is particularly true where the Legislature has omitted a provision which it has employed in other circumstances where the asserted effect is intended."  (Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Anthony (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1160-1161.)  

We find no contrary legislative intent elsewhere.  Indeed, the legislative history of this amendment supports our conclusion.  In adding subdivision (m) of section 22658, the Legislature considered the recommendations of a legislative advisory committee that had conducted a review of "all relevant laws affecting tow trucks" and advised the Legislature to insert a statement of intent only as to subdivisions (k) and (l) of section

17

Document info
Document views82
Page views82
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 20:05:09 UTC 2016
Pages29
Paragraphs130
Words7802

Comments