Cited by

v. Craig, ¶ 29 (2001))); see also Scalia & Garner, supra ¶ 23, at 183 (discussing the general/specific canon).

v. Craig, ¶ 28 (2001))).

v. Craig, ¶ 11 (2001) (“When two statutes appear to conflict, we will attempt to harmonize their language to give effect to each.”).

v. Craig, ¶ 25 (2001) (cleaned up).

v. Craig, ¶ 28 (2001); see generally Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts at 327–33 (1st ed. 2012).

¶ 25 (2001) (), and commentary related to it “is highly persuasive,” id.

v. Craig, –30, ¶ 11 (2001).

v. Craig, ¶ 25 (2001) (“[W]e assume that the legislature intended to adopt the construction placed on the [Uniform] act by its drafters.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

v. Craig, ¶¶ 28–29 (2001); Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Reiser, ).

v. Craig, ¶ 29 (2001) (implied repeal); Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Reiser, (implied amendment).

v. Craig, ¶ 29, (implied repeal); Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Reiser, (implied amendment); accord 1A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 22:13 (7th ed. 2012) (“An implied amendment is an act which purports to be independent, but which in substance alters, mod