Cited by

Exam’rs, (declining to read term into statutory provision when legislature has included the term in some places within the statute, and excluded it in another).

Exam’rs, (when statute uses specific phrase in some sections but not in others, court cannot read that phrase into section from which it was excluded).

Exam’rs, , (citation omitted) (when legislature specifically uses a term in certain places within statute and excludes it from another place, courts do not read the term into the section from which it was excluded).

Exam’rs, , (noting that when legislature uses term in certain places within statute and excludes it from other sections court will not read term into section from which term excluded).

Exam’rs, , (“If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it ordinarily must be regarded as conclusive unless the legislature has clearly expressed a contrary intent.”).

Examiners, , (holding that “[w]here [the] legislature has specifically used a term in certain places within a statute and excluded it in another place, courts will not read that term into the section from which it was excluded”); Arizona Bd.

Exam’rs, , (citations omitted)).

Examiners, , (stating that when a statute uses a specific phrase in some sections but not in others, a court cannot read that phrase into the section from which it was excluded); , (same).

Exam’rs, , (citing Board of Regents v. Pub.

Exam’rs, , (where a term appears in one statutory section and not in another, court will not read it into the latter).

Exam’rs, , ($1000 administrative penalty); -69 , -96 (App.1986) (restitution order); Huls v. Arizona State Bd.