Cited by

Under this canon, where “a statute specifies under what conditions it is effective, we can ordinarily infer that it excludes all others.” ¶ 8 (App. 2003); ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (“We analyze procedural rules using principles of statutory construction.”).

(“use of the word ‘minor’ in § 13-3554(C) refers to an actual child”); (same); (“Although luring a minor for sexual exploitation is not a ‘dangerous crime against children,’ the legislature has prescribed that it is punishable in accordance with [§ 13-705] under certain circumstances, i.e. when the minor is under fifteen years of age.”).

See Boynton v. Anderson , , 48-49, ¶¶ 10-11, 15, , 91-92 (App. 2003) (striking DCAC designation of a conviction for an offense not found within DCAC, but affirming an enhanced sentence where the underlying offense statute incorporated the DCAC enhanced sentencing scheme).

-48, ¶¶ 8-11 (App. 2003).

n.2, ¶ 15, n.2 (App. 2003) (citations omitted).

Id.; ¶ 15 , (“Although luring a minor for sexual exploitation is not a ‘dangerous crime against children,’ the legislature has prescribed that it is punishable in accordance with § 13-604.01(1) under certain circumstances, i.e. when the minor is under fifteen years of age.”).

ne whether the mailing provision in § 33-992.01(F) applies to twenty day notices sent pursuant to § 34-223(A) of the LMA, we apply the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, an established rule of statutory construction meaning “‘the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.’” -91 (App. 2003), CEMEX v. FALCONE BROS. & ASSOCS., INC. Opinion of the Court 218, 221 (App. 2002).

“Or” is “a disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.” n.2, ¶ 15, n.2 (App. 2003) ( ).

¶ 15 , (“Although luring a minor for sexual exploitation is not a ‘dangerous crime against children,’ the legislature has prescribed that it is punishable in accordance with § 13-604.01(1) under certain circumstances, i.e. when the minor is under fifteen years of age.”).

The presumptive term may be increased or decreased by up to five years.” 49, ¶¶ 6, 15, 92 (App. 2003).

We recognize that this principle is a rule of construction to aid us and that it “is not definitive or an invariable standard of interpretation.” ¶ 8

By excluding a “pack” from the classes of containers in which an individual may lawfully carry a concealed weapon on his person, the legislature indicated its intent to exclude any container that could be construed as a “pack” from qualifying as “luggage.” , 47 ¶ 8, (utilizing the established rule of construction “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” meaning “the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed” (cit