Cited by

However, when construing statutes, courts should “give meaning to ‘each word, phrase, clause, and sentence so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.’” ¶ 13 (2023) ().

And we must “give meaning to ‘[e]ach word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.’” Mussi, 255 Ariz. at 398 ¶ 13 (first alteration in original) ().

Courts read statutes in harmony to avoid leaving any provision “superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.” Deddens, 112 Ariz. at 429; (noting that we give meaning to “[e]ach word, phrase, and sentence .

(alteration in original) ().

(“Each word, phrase, and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be [void], inert, redundant, or trivial.”).

so that no part will be void [sic], inert, redundant, or trivial.”

City of Phoenix v. Yates , , 73

v. Yates , , 72, ) (emphasis omitted).

¶ 10 (2009) (“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.” ()).

We interpret a constitutional “[a]mendment as a whole and in harmony with other portions of the Arizona Constitution.” ¶ 24 , , (“Each word, phrase, and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be [void], inert, redundant, or trivial.”).

“Each word, phrase, and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be [void], inert, redundant, or trivial.”

(“Each word, phrase, and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be [void], inert, redundant, or trivial.”); , (“A court also should interpret two sections of the same statute consistently, especially

In interpreting statutes, however, "[ejach word, phrase, clause, and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”

See, , (When interpreting a statute, "[e]ach word, phrase, and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.").

We cannot, therefore, construe the phrase “fingerprint fee” as synonymous with or a substitute for the phrase “costs of the background investigation.” See, , (When interpreting a statute, “[e]ach word, phrase, clause, and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial”).

“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”

(“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial.”) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) ( , ).

C. ¶ 9 In construing statutes we “give full effect to the intent of the lawmaker, and each word, phrase, clause and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial.” , ( , ).

“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.” (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) ( ).

Williams v. Thude, 188 Ariz. 257, 258, (“‘Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence of a statute must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.’”) (emphasis omitted)

(“Each word, phrase, clause and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”).