Cited by

A statute’s “expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.”

(explaining “well established rule of statutory construction provides that 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[]”).

No. 50, 180 Ariz. at 153 ( ("[W]here two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific statute controls.")).

However, “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.” see also Welch v. Cochise Cnty.

(“Another well established rule of statutory construction dictates that where two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific statute controls.”).

Fund v. Superior Court (EnerGCorp, Inc.), -76 (App. 1997)); ("A well established rule of statutory construction provides that 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.").

v. Heinfeld, 3 ¶16 In short, on its face, paragraph 10 does not purport to provide a comprehensive list of permissible and prohibited uses on the land.

(“where two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific statute controls”).

However, “where two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific 10 GUTIERREZ V. HON FOX/KIVLIGHN Opinion of the Court statute controls.” –35 (1982).

v. Heinfeld, (“[W]here two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific statute controls.”).

(“A well established rule of statutory construction provides that 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.”).

v. Heinfeld, -35, -83 (1982) (“where two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific statute controls”); Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Lee ex rel.

to do so in a distinct but procedurally analogous realm of civil traffic enforcement actions.3 (“‘A well established rule of statutory construction provides that 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.’”)

(“ ‘A well established rule of statutory construction provides that 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.’ ”) ( , ); ¶ 11 , (same).

¶ 29 When construing statutes we consider that “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.” , see also PAM Transp.

Id.; , (general rule is that more recent statute controls older statute).

Under the established rule of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “ ‘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.’”

("A well established rule of statutory construction provides that 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.") (citations omitted).

(A statutory “expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.”).

To interpret the word “state” in article 9, section 2(1) as broadly as Pima IDA does — to encompass all political subdivisions of the state — is to remove all meaning from the section’s mention of “county and municipal.” To give meaning to those words, then, we apply the principle of expressio unius est exclusio al-terius, , and hold that, because article 9, section 2(1) expressly exempts county and municipal property from taxation, it excludes from that exemption the property of all other polit

Id.; , -36 , -84 (1982); -76 .

except if the person is in custody for an offense or is the accused.” “A well established rule of statutory construction provides that 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.”