Cited by

See Reed-Kaliher, 237 Ariz. at 122, ¶¶ 6–8; ¶ 16 (2001) (“[W]e interpret and apply statutory language in a way that will avoid an untenable or irrational result.”); ¶ 11 (App. 2001) (“We apply practical, common sense constructions rather than hypertechnical ones that would tend to frustrate legislative intent when we interpret criminal statutes.”).

“When possible, we seek to harmonize statutory provisions and avoid interpretations that result in contradictory provisions.” Premiere Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016); ¶ 14 (App. 2001) (statutory provisions must be “construed in context with related provisions and in light of their place in the statutory scheme”).

Generally, to succeed on a facial challenge a party “must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [law] would be valid.” ¶ 28 (App. 2001) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987)).

We must “interpret and apply statutory language in a way that will avoid an untenable or irrational result,” ¶ 16 (2001), and we must also “apply practical, common sense constructions rather than hypertechnical ones that would tend to frustrate legislative intent when we interpret criminal statutes,” ¶ 11 (App. 2001).

§ 42-16255(B) prevents [a property owner] from filing an error correction claim to correct [a] classification error would undermine that legislative intent.” Levy, 1 CA- TX 14-0007 at 5, ¶ 20; ¶ 11 (App. 2001) (holding courts should “apply practical, common sense constructions rather than hypertechnical ones that would tend to frustrate legislative intent”).

¶ 11, (holding that courts should “apply practical, common sense constructions rather than hypertechnical ones that would tend to frustrate legislative intent.”).

Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., ¶ 10, ¶ 13, (statutory provisions are construed in context with related provisions and in light of their place in the statutory scheme).

Although the presumption contained in § 28-1381(G) is permissive and “nothing more than an inference,” the trial judge still has a duty to instruct the jury on this general principle of law pertaining to a prosecution under (A)(1) once evidence is introduced of the defendant’s alcohol concentration.

“If we find that there is no set of circumstances under which the statute can be found constitutional, then it must be found unconstitutional.” n.4, n.4 (App. 2001).

Courts “apply practical, common sense constructions rather than hypertechnical ones that would tend to frustrate legislative intent.” , *159 150, ¶ 11

¶ 13 , (courts construe statutory provisions in context with related provisions and in light of their placement in the statutory scheme); -61, ¶¶ 11-12 , -51 (App.1998) (reading statute as a unitary whole in order to determine the mea

Power Corp., Inc., , 125, ¶ 134, , 604 (App.2004)(interpreting statute to give it a fair and sensible meaning, rather than a construction that frustrates legislative intent); ¶ 11 , (‘We apply practical, common sense constructions rather than hypertechnical ones that would tend to frustrate legislative intent when we interpret criminal statutes.”); , (in construing statutes, courts consider c

(“Although statutorily created criminal offenses with no mental element ‘have a generally disfavored status,’ ...