Cited by

(“[A] statute is not retroactive in application simply because it may relate to antecedent facts.”); (“[L]aws are not retrospective by their mere relation to antecedent conditions.”); Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 273 (1994) (“When 5 Of note is the fact that the stated purpose for including the fifteen-year diagnosis limitation in 2017 was to “[l]imit application of new and existing cancer pr

No. 8, 121 Ariz. 6 DESERT MOUNTAIN v. FLAGSTAFF Opinion of the Court 264, 267 (App. 1978).

Freight Sys., Inc., – 40 (1986); (Civil statutes “may not be applied retroactively in the absence of a specific provision to that effect.

Eng’g (stating that a statute imposing a duty on a public official “must be prescribed in terms sufficient and definite to serve as a guide” for “intelligent execution”); (“[S]tatutory language must be sufficiently definite so that those who are to execute the law may do so in a rational and reasoned manner.”).

Yet they merely illustrate the scope of the power and do not delimit it.”); (“[I]t is well established that the right to pursue a profession is subject to the paramount right of the state under its police powers to regulate business and professions in order to protect the public health, morals and welfare.”).

(“[C]ourt[s] should avoid legislating a particular result by judicial construction.”); State ex rel.

("[I]ndefiniteness in any statute may constitute an unconstitutional denial of due process of law as guaranteed by the [F]ourteenlh [Ajmendmenl of the United States Constitution and [Ajrticle 2, [Section] 4 of the Arizona Constitution when it is so vague that men of common intelligence mu

welfare.” (citing Ariz. State Bd.

(“[A] court should avoid legislating a particular result by judicial construction.”).

60 (1803); , (declaring legislation invalid based on constitutional grounds); , (concluding that Arizona’s legislative enactment limiting marriage to one man and one woman was constitutional).

(“court[s] should avoid legislating a particular result by judicial construction”); State ex rel.

(citation omitted) (holding "court[s] should avoid legislating a particular result by judicial construction"); State ex rel.

(citation omitted) (holding “eourt[s] should avoid legislating a particular result by judicial construction”); State ex rel.

what the constitution contains, but not what it should contain”); , (adding phrase to statute by "judicial fiat,” despite benevolent intent, “would be an infringement upon the province of the legislature”); , ("court[s] should avoid legislating a particular result by judicial construction”); First Nat’l , (rewriting unconstitutional statute a legislative function)

Freight System, Inc., , , (emphasis original in Hall); see San Carlos Apache Tribe, 193 Ariz. at 205 , 972 P.2d at 189

It is also true that “the right to pursue a profession is subject to the paramount right of the state under its police powers to regulate business and professions in order to protect the public health, morals and welfare.”

( , ); see also Application of Levine, , (state may not preclude right to engage in profession for reasons which violate due process); , (citation omitted) (state regulation of rig

Fund, 166 Ariz. at 151 , 800 P.2d at 1259 ( , ).

Prentiss, 163 Ariz. at 86 , 786 P.2d at 937 ( , ).

Neal contends that the word “oriented” is vague in the context used, and as proof of his position he points out that soon after the problem with his sign arose, the city amended the ordinance by substituting the word “perpendicular” for “oriented.” , for the proposition that when a statute is so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and may differ as to how it should be applied, the application of the statute may constitute a denial of due process.

(statutes must be construed in view of the purpose they are intended to accomplish and the evils they are designed to remedy).

It is equally well settled that “the right to pursue a profession is subject to the paramount right of the state under its police powers to regulate business and professions in order to protect the public health, morals and welfare.”