Cited by

¶24 We rejected a –95 (1964), where reading “fuel” to include all liquids used in motor vehicles would have rendered another tax 8 STATE V. SERRATO Opinion of the Court provision on motor vehicle fuel meaningless.

Pickrell, )); S. Ariz. Home Builders Ass’n, 254 Ariz. at 286 ¶ 31 (“Statutory interpretation requires us to determine the meaning of the words the legislature chose to use.”); (“Where the statute is unambiguous, the courts will only apply the language used and not interpret, for the statute speaks for itself.”).

Thus, if there is only one reasonable interpretation, “we apply it without further analysis.” Id.; (“[O]nly where the statute is ambiguous are courts at liberty to construe the language used.”).

When looking at secondary factors, we may accept prior administrative interpretation “where long continued and in cases of ambiguity.” see also U.S. Parking Sys.

(“An amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.”).

–95 (1964) (“The presumption is that the legislature did not intend to do a futile thing by including [language that] is not operative.“).

The experts also agreed that “[i]n both cases the rotating generators transform mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy, then into electrical energy, which finally drives the flow of electric charge (i.e. electric current, electricity).” 3 ¶ 11 Because the language of § 42-5155 is plain and unambiguous, we “apply the language used.”

The experts also agreed that “[i]n both cases the rotating generators transform mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy, then into electrical energy, which finally drives the flow of electric charge (i.e. electric current, electricity).”3 ¶11 Because the language of § 42-5155 is plain and unambiguous, we “apply the language used.”

This is particularly true when, as here, the Department’s construction of the statute is “long continued,” , -29 , and when a contrary outcome would upset settled understandings, , (“Where there has been such a background of acquiescence in the meaning of a law unless manifestly erroneo

¶22 “An amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.” Levy, 1 CA-TX 14-0007 at 5, ¶ 19 (); see also Ariz. State Senate Fact Sheet for S.B.

“An amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.” see also Ariz. State Senate, Fact Sheet for S.B.

¶19 “An amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.” see also Ariz. State Senate, Fact Sheet for S.B.

(“An amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.”).

(“The legislature has now clearly expressed its intention consistent with the construction which we believe should be placed on the former statutes.

(if the language of a statute “is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite mean *8 ing, there is no occasion for resorting- to the rules of statutory interpretation”).

that ‘[a]n amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.’ ” , ( , ); see generally 2 C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 41.11, at 289-90 (4th ed.1973) (cited in Canisius College v. United States, 799 F.2d 18, 27 (2d Cir.1986)) (curative legislation is typically entitled to a liberal construction); but see San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior

In considering such statutes, “[a]n amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.” , (citation omitted).

see also City of Mesa v. Killingsworth, 96 Ariz. 290, 294, (“Where the statute is unambiguous, the courts will only apply the language used and not interpret, for the statute speaks for itself.”).

“An amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the 15 original act.”

(“An amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.” (citations omitted)); ¶ 36 , (amendment of Arizona Securities Act c

(citations omitted) (“An amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.”).

(citations omitted) (“An amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.”).

(“An amendment which, in effect, construes and .