, 

.,. I 

, 

The Attorney General of Texas 

December 20, 1977 

Honorable Don Adams 

Chairman, Administration 

Opinion No. H-1107 

Committee 

The Senate of 

Austin, Texas 

Re: Whether section 

the State of Texas 16.056(f) Education 

Code, enacted in the 

regular session of the 

65th Legislature was 

repealed in the subse- 

_ 

Dear Senator Adams: quent special session. 

You have asked whether section 16.056(f) of the 

Education Code, as enacted by the regular session of the 

65th Legislature, was repealed in the subsequent special 

session. 

House Bill 612, Acts 1977, 65th Leg., ch. 377, at 

1029, enacted on May 29, 1977, provides, in section 23: 

Section 16.056, Texas Education 

Code, as amended, is amended by 

adding Subsection (f) to read as 

follows: 

n (fl In determining the placement of distributive education 

teachers under the Texas Public 

Education Compensation Plan, a year 

of approved work experience shall 

be considered equivalent to a year 

of teaching experience." 

House Bill 612 became effective on June 10, 1977. 

On July 15, 1977, in a special session, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1, Acts 1977, 65th Leg., 1st C.S., 

ch. 1, at 11. Senate Bill 1 states that one of its purposes is the "amending [of] [slection 16.056, relating to 

salaries of school personnel." Section 4 of Senate Bill 

1 provides: 

p. 4531 
Honorable Don Adams - Page 2 (H-1107) 

Section 16.056, Texas Education Code, 

as amended, is revised to read as follows: 

. . . . 

There follow subsections (a)-(i), which amend portions of former subsections (a)-(d), and add a number of new provisions. 

The language added as subsection (fl in the regular session is 

not found in any part of the amended section 16.056, or elsewhere in Senate Bill 1. 

In Attorney General Opinion H-788 (1976), we held that 

the omission of a subsection from the revision of a section of 

the Education Code acted to repeal the deleted subsection. We 

based this conclusion upon the well established principles that 

"the latest expression of legislative intent supersedes its 

predecessor," and that "[aln amendment operates to repeal any 

provision of the original act or section that is omitted." Id. 

at 2-3. See State v. Easley, 404 S.W.2d 296, 300 (Tex. 1966) 

State v. Andrews, 20 Tex. 230 (Tex. 1857); Commercial Standard 

Fire & Marine Co. v. Comm'r of Insurance, 429 S.W.2d 930, 933 

(Tex. Civ. App. -- Austin 1966, no writ). 

Where an amendatory act sets out the original section as 

amended in its entirety, using the phrase "to read as follows," 

and fails to reenact some part of the original or amendments 

thereto, the omitted portions are considered repealed. State 

v. Andrews, supra; Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass'n v. Lennox, 

296 S.W. 325 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Texarkana 1927, no writ); 

1A Sutherland, Statutory Construction 9 22.32 at 186-187 14th 

ed. 1972). 

The section to be amended is clearly identified as "section 16.056, Texas Education Code, as amended." Section 16.056 

was added to the Education Code in 1975 as a part of a comprehensive revision of chapter 16. Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 334, 

at 877. The only previous amendment to the section was that 

enacted by section 23 of House Bill 612 in the Regular Session 

of the 65th Legislature. Thus, the reference to a revision of 

section 16.056 "as amended" can only refer to that section as 

amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., ch. 377, at 1029. It is 

generally presumed that every word in a statute is used for a 

purpose. Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullock, 531 S.W.2d 593 

(Tex. 19751. While the special session amendment could have 

been more specific in referring to the previous amendment, the 

language used appears to refer to the sole amendment to section 

16.056 in force at that time. 

p. 4532 
, - 

‘I 

Honorable Don Adams - Page 3 (H-1107) 

Finally, another rule of statutory construction supports 

our conclusion. The special session amendment of section 16.056 

purports ,to be a comprehensive revision of the entire subject 

matter. This is indicated by the use of the term "revised" in 

describing what is intended to be done. It is also demonstrated 

by inspection of the revision and the extensive changes and additions made. The very comprehensiveness of such an act gives 

strona imolication of a leaislative intent to reneal former 

statutory-law upon the sub;ect. Bryan v. Sundberq 5 Tex. 418, 

424 (1849); Meek v. Wheeler County, 125 S.W.2d 331: 334 (Tex. 

Civ. App. -- Amarillo 1939). aff'd, 144 S.W.2d 885 (Tex. 1940); 

Luse v:-City of Dallas, 131.S.W.2d.1079 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Dallas 

1939, writ ref'd); 1A Sutherland, Statutory Construction 9 23.13 

at 238-239. This rule operates to repeal other statutes by implication. We believe the reason for it applies with at least 

equal force in the case of a previous amendment omitted in a 

comprehensive revision of a particular section which purports 

to cover the entire subject matter. 

While it is possible that the omission of former subsection 

(f) was inadvertent, we have no basis on which to conclude that 

its deletion "did not indicate the intention of the Legislature 

to repeal that statute." Attorney General Opinion H-788 (1976) 

at 2. See State ex rel. Gebhardt-v. Superior Court for King 

County,131 P.2d 943, 949-50 (Wash. 1942). Accordingly, it is 

our oninion that Texas courts would orobablv rule that section 

16.056(f) of the Education Code, as ) enacted by the regular session of the 65th Legislature, was repealed in the subsequent 

special session. 

SUMMARY 

Texas courts would probably rule that section 16.056(f) of the Education Code, as 

enacted by the regular session of the 65th 

Legislature, was repealed in the subsequent 

special session. 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 4533 
Honorable Don Adams - Page 4 (H-1107) 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

BERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

- 

p. 4534