Opinion ID: 865688
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the RPAPA repealed the Seawall Act.

Text: ¶24. The RPAPA did not explicitly repeal the Seawall Act, nor does it refer to the Seawall Act in any way. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-37-1 to 43-37-13 (Rev. 2009). “In order for a subsequent act to repeal a former one expressly, it must point out the statute repealed with sufficient certainty.” Roberts v. Miss. Republican Party State Executive Comm., 465 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Miss.1985) (quoting Ex parte McInnis, 98 Miss. 773, 783, 54 So. 260, 262 (1911)). The Roberts Court continued, “If it was the purpose of the legislature to repeal [a section] of the Code . . . it should have said so explicitly in the repealing act; but this they did not do.” Id. at 1052. Therefore, we find that the Seawall Act was not expressly repealed by the RPAPA. ¶25. Although not expressly repealed, the Seawall Act might have been repealed by implication, if it conflicts with the RPAPA. However, this Court has stated, “That implied repeals are not favored has been the universal declaration of this and of all courts.” Id. at 1051. See also Associated Press v. Bost, 656 So. 2d 113, 115 (Miss. 1995). This Court has held that the RPAPA is not in direct conflict with a statute very similar to the Seawall Act. See Branaman, 730 So. 2d at 1152; Miss. Code Ann. § 51-29-39 (Rev. 2003). The standard set by this Court requires there to be “a plain and unavoidable repugnancy between” statutes before one may be said to have repealed the other by implication. Roberts, 465 So. 2d at 1052 (quoting McInnis, 54 So. at 262). Even when statutes are “in apparent conflict,” they “should if possible be construed in harmony with each other to give effect to each.” Roberts, 465 So. 2d at 1052. Although areas of apparent conflict will be discussed below, we find that the high standard for repeal by implication has not been met. 17