Cited by

¶ 9 (2014) (approving the use of dictionaries to establish the meaning of undefined terms).

¶ 13 (2014) (“[S]tatutory title headings .

Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), 347, ¶¶ 1, 24 (2014), and the only references apparent in the record related to a non-impairing metabolite.

(“Statutes should be construed sensibly to avoid reaching an absurd conclusion.”).

¶ 13 (2014) (“Statutes should be construed sensibly to avoid reaching an absurd conclusion.”).

(courts avoid construing statutes to produce untenable result); -74 (1952) (same as to constitutional provisions).

¶ 13 (2014) (“Statutes should be construed sensibly to avoid reaching an absurd conclusion.”).

-02, ¶ 13 (2014) (“[W]e consider a statute in light of its place in the statutory scheme, and although statutory title headings are not part of the law, they can aid in its interpretation.”).

¶ 13 (2014) (noting that “[s]tatutes should be construed sensibly to avoid reaching an absurd conclusion”).

which held that one may not be convicted under § 28-1381(A)(3) based on the presence of the marijuana metabolite Carboxy-THC.

¶ 13 (2014) (stating that if a statute’s language is ambiguous, we will consider its relevant legislative history in construing its meaning).

Montgomery v. Harris , , ¶ 13, ; State v. Ross , , ¶ 22

¶ 8 (2014) ( ¶ 7 (2007)).