Cited by

Comm’n, ¶ 1 (App. 2008), the court 9 STATE V. HON.

Comm’n, ¶ 21 (App. 2008) (cleaned up); ¶ 60 (2021).

Comm’n, ¶ 5 (App. 2008) (reviewing a suspended benefits claim due to employee’s criminal conviction for fraudulently seeking to obtain compensation benefits pursuant to A.R.S.

Comm’n, ¶ 9 (App. 2008).

Comm’n, ¶ 16 (App. 2008).

Comm’n of Ariz., ¶ 21 (App. 2008).

Comm’n, ¶ 16 (App. 2008) (“[E]ach word or phrase in a statute must be given meaning so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory, or insignificant.”) (citing Pinal Vista Props., ¶ 10 (App. 2004)).

Comm'n, ¶ 21 (App. 2008) ("It is a 'normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used in different parts of the same Act are intended to have the same meaning.'" (quoting Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995))).

Comm’n, ¶ 9 (App. 2008).

Comm’n, ¶ 9 (App. 2008).

Comm’n, ¶ 21 (App. 2008) (“It is a normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used in different parts of the same Act are intended to have the same meaning.” (internal quotation and citation omitted)).

Comm’n, ¶ 9 (App. 2008).

Comm’n, ¶ 9 (App. 2008) (citing Naslund v. Indus.

Comm’n, ¶ 9 (App. 2008).

Comm’n, ¶ 16 (App. 2008) (explaining that “each word or phrase in a statute must be given meaning so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory, or insignificant”).

Comm’n of Ariz., ¶ 9 (App. 2008).

Comm’n of Ariz., ¶ 21 , (“It is a normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used in different parts of the same Act are intended to have the same meaning.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Comm’n, ¶ 21, (noting that a term in a statutory subsection should be given the same meaning each time it is used).

Comm’n, ¶ 11 , (“We look first to the language of the statute as the most reliable indicator of its meaning.”).