Also known as:repugnancy · repugnance · inconsistency
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
1
inconsistency
A provision or instrument that is inconsistent or irreconcilable with another legal document or constitutional command. Courts and statutes treat such repugnancy as rendering the conflicting portion inoperative.
2
professional responsibility
Sense 1
1
inconsistency
A provision or instrument that is inconsistent or irreconcilable with another legal document or constitutional command. Courts and statutes treat such repugnancy as rendering the conflicting portion inoperative.
Examples4
Later Will Revokes Earlier One
Raphael Rivera executed a will leaving his estate to his children. Two years later he signed a new will that disposed of the entire estate to a charity without mentioning the first instrument. Because the second will made a complete disposition, it revoked the earlier will by inconsistency. The probate court therefore admitted only the later will to probate.
Subsequent Will Replaces Prior Disposition
Sense 2
2
professional responsibility
Morally or ethically objectionable to a lawyer in the context of client representation. A lawyer may withdraw when a client insists on action the lawyer finds repugnant.
Examples2
Client Demands Unethical Tactic
Ronald Reed retained counsel to defend a contract claim but then insisted the lawyer file a pleading containing known falsehoods. The lawyer viewed the demand as repugnant and moved to withdraw under the rule permitting termination when a client insists on repugnant action. The court granted withdrawal after confirming the lawyer had taken reasonable steps to avoid prejudice to Reed.
Morally or ethically objectionable to a lawyer in the context of client representation. A lawyer may withdraw when a client insists on action the lawyer finds repugnant.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Riley Rivera executed a will leaving her house to her niece. She later executed a new will that gave the same house to her brother and made no reference to the niece. Because the second will made a complete disposition of the estate, the probate court held it revoked the first will by inconsistency and admitted only the later instrument.
State Tax Conflicts With Federal Charter
Rajesh Rao, cashier of a federally chartered bank, refused to pay a state stamp tax on bank notes. The state argued its tax law controlled. The Supreme Court held the state statute repugnant to the federal charter creating the bank and therefore void under the Supremacy Clause.
McCulloch v. Maryland17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
In April 1816, Congress passed an act entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States." The Bank organized in Philadelphia pursuant to the act and in 1817 established a branch in the City of Baltimore that from that time until May 1, 1818, transacted business by issuing bank notes, discounting promissory notes, and performing other customary operations under the authority of the corporate body established at Philadelphia.
On February 11, 1818, the General Assembly of Maryland passed an act entitled "An act to impose a tax on all banks, or branches thereof, in the State of Maryland, not chartered by the legislature." The Maryland statute provided that any such branch could not lawfully issue notes except upon stamped paper of specified denominations furnished by the Treasurer of the Western Shore, or could relieve itself from that requirement by paying annually in advance to the Treasurer the sum of $15,000. Officers offending against the provisions forfeited $500 for each offense, and persons circulating unstamped notes forfeited up to $100, with penalties recoverable by indictment or action of debt.
James W. McCulloch, cashier of the Baltimore branch, on the days set forth in the declaration issued bank notes to George Williams in Baltimore in part payment of a promissory note discounted by the branch, and those notes were not issued on stamped paper as prescribed by the Maryland act; neither the bank nor its branch had paid the $15,000 in advance before or since the issuance of those notes.
John James, who sued as well for himself as for the State of Maryland, brought an action of debt against McCulloch in the County Court of Baltimore County to recover the penalties. The parties submitted a statement of agreed facts to the court, which rendered judgment against McCulloch; the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that judgment, and McCulloch brought the cause to the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error.
Ruby Rivera sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel delivery of her judicial commission. Congress had purported to grant the Court original jurisdiction over such claims. The Court held the statute repugnant to Article III and therefore without effect.
Marbury v. Madison5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
In December 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper petitioned the Supreme Court for a rule requiring Secretary of State James Madison to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding delivery of their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. The applicants had been nominated by outgoing President John Adams. The Senate had advised and consented to the appointments. Commissions in due form were signed by the President with the seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State.
During the proceedings the Court heard testimony from Department of State clerks Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, who described the preparation and handling of the commissions. Wagner recalled that two commissions had been signed but could not confirm whether those of the applicants were recorded. Brent believed Marbury's and Hooe's commissions were made out. Ramsay's was omitted by mistake. None of the Adams-signed commissions for District justices were recorded. Attorney General Levi Lincoln, who had acted as Secretary of State, testified that he had seen signed and sealed commissions but did not know whether any for the applicants were ever sent out.
James Marshall's affidavit stated that on March 4, 1801, he received and later returned several commissions from the Secretary of State's office, including those for Hooe and Harper. The applicants also submitted the affidavit of Hazen Kimball confirming that commissions for Marbury and Hooe were in the office on March 3, 1801. Madison did not appear or show cause after the rule was served. The motion for the writ itself was heard in the February 1803 term.
How does repugnancy affect the validity of a later will?
Under UPC § 2-507(b), a subsequent will that does not expressly revoke an earlier will revokes it by inconsistency when the testator intended the later will to replace rather than supplement the first. The later will controls if it makes a complete disposition of the estate.
What does it mean for a statute to be repugnant to the Constitution?
A statute is repugnant to the Constitution when it conflicts with a constitutional command. Courts treat the repugnant statute as void and without legal effect, as established in foundational cases interpreting the Supremacy Clause.
Ryan Roberts was assigned counsel for a high-profile criminal appeal. The client demanded that counsel argue a theory the lawyer considered morally repugnant and likely to damage the attorney-client relationship. Counsel moved to decline the appointment, and the court relieved him after finding the cause repugnant within the meaning of the rule.
2 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
When may a lawyer withdraw because a client insists on repugnant action?
A lawyer may withdraw under Rule 1.16(b)(4) when the client insists upon taking action the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement. The lawyer must still take reasonable steps to protect the client's interests.
May appointed counsel decline representation on repugnancy grounds?
Yes. Rule 6.2(c) permits a lawyer to decline a court appointment when the client or cause is so repugnant that it is likely to impair the lawyer-client relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client effectively.
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
…to give original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in other cases than those described in the Constitution. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The courts of the United States are bound to take notice of the Constitution. A commission is not necessary to the appointment of an officer by the…