Cited by

We must also give effect to each word or phrase and apply the “usual and commonly understood meaning unless the legislature clearly intended a different meaning.” -65, ¶ 11 , -72 (2003) ( , ).

BACKGROUND ¶ 2 This litigation has an extensive history that includes three appellate decisions: , , and Bilke v. State, 1 CA-CV 01-0601 (Ariz.App.

Thus, the judgment is appealable pursuant to § 12-2101 (G), which allows appeal “[fjrom an interlocutory judgment which determines the rights of the parties and it directs an accounting or other proceeding to determine the amount of the recovery.” , Salerno v. Atl.

¶ 11 , *452 State v. Superior Court (Kerr-McGee Corp.)

unless application of the plain meaning would lead to impossible or absurd results.” ¶ 11, (quoting Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.

¶9 “When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.” 1 In his reply brief, Marco argues the statute provides no guidance to courts for determining what constitutes clear and convincing evidence for purposes of § 8-106.01(E).

“If the language is clear, the court must ‘apply it without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation’ unless application of the plain meaning would lead to impossible or absurd results.” ¶ 11 , (quoting Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.

“If the language is clear, the court must apply it without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation unless application of the plain meaning would lead to impossible or absurd results.” , (internal quotation and citations omitted).

(we interpret statutes to give effect to each word, clause, and phrase).

¶ 11 , State v. Superior Court (Kerr-McGee Corp.)

¶ 11 , (The court must apply the clear language of the statute unless it “would lead to impossible or absurd results.”).

See Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462, 464, ¶ 10, (interpreting statute); (interpreting court rule).

On April 15, 2003, , , this court dismissed Acacia's appeal as an improper interlocutory appeal.

The language of § 12-505(B) is “clear on its face,” and must be “applied according to its plain meaning.” Id.; , 464-65 ¶ 11, -72 (2003).

¶ 11, (“The court must give effect to each word of the statute.”).

If the legislative intent is unclear, we then employ other methods of statutory construction, ¶ 11 , including a consideration of related provisions.

Kearney, 206 Ariz. at 549, ¶ 5 , 81 P.3d at 340 (citation omitted); -65, ¶ 11 , -72 (2003) (stating that the court must assign language its usual and commonly understood meaning unless the drafter clearly intended a different meaning).