Skip to main content
· 11/2/1978

Duda v. State Board of Pharmacy

Citations

  • 38 Pa. Commw. 378
  • 393 A.2d 57
  • 1978 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1400

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a more recent, more specific statute \repealed by implication\ a more general statute
  • “Repeal by implication arises only where language used in the later statute is irreconcilably repugnant to the provisions of the earlier statute so as absolutely to preclude a consonant construction of both.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bowman, Wilkinson, Menoeb, Rogers, Blatt, Disalle, MacPhail, Crumlish, Craig

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.