Cited by

(“It is a cardinal rule of construction that statutory provisions must be considered in the context of the entire statute .

A statute “is to be given such an effect that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void, or contradictory or insignificant.”

(“A statute is to be given such an effect that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”).

See Guzman v. 6 (“[T]he rule against retroactive modification .

See, , (“A statute is to be given such an effect that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”).

“[P]rovisions [of a court rule] must be considered in the context of the entire [rule] and consideration must be given to all of the [rule’s] provisions to determine the [supreme court’s] intent manifested by the entire [rule].” Medders, 90 P.3d at 1244

¶ 15 “It is a cardinal rule of construction that statutory provisions must be considered in the context of the entire statute and consideration must be given to all of the statute’s provisions to determine the legislative intent manifested by the entire act.” , ¶ 10 , (applying principle to construe court rule).

(“A statute is to be given such an effect that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”).

¶ 9 To support his contention, Father relies primarily on this court’s , which addressed the effect of a minor child’s marriage on the father’s obligation to pay child support until the child graduated from high school.

But, “[i]t is a cardinal rule of construction that statutory provisions must be considered in the context of the entire statute and consideration must be given to all of the statute’s provisions to determine the legislative intent manifested by the entire act.”

(“A statute is to be given such an effect that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”).

“ ‘What a statute necessarily implies is as much a part of the statute as what the statute specifically expresses.’ ” , see also Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc.

(“ ‘What a statute necessarily implies is as much a part of the statute as what the statute specifically expresses.’ ”)

(‘What a statute necessarily implies is as much a part of the statute as what the statute specifically expresses.”).

Section 25-327(B) clearly provides that spousal main *418 tenance terminates upon the death of either former spouse “[u]nless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in the decree.” “A statute is to be given such an effect that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”