Cited by

See Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016) (“When a statute is ambiguous, we determine its meaning by considering secondary factors, such as the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”).

¶35 “When possible, we seek to harmonize statutory provisions and avoid interpretations that result in contradictory provisions.” Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016).

“A statute’s plain language best indicates legislative intent, and when the language is clear, we apply it unless an absurd or unconstitutional result would follow.” Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016).

¶9 “Ambiguity arises when the [provision’s] language is reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations,” Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016), or “if there is uncertainty about the meaning or interpretation of a statute’s terms.” Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.

Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016) (statutes); ¶ 10 (2013) (court rules).

v. Navarro , , 194-95, ¶ 6, , 989-90 (2016), and Valerie M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ.

v. Navarro, -95, ¶ 6 (2016), and Valerie M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

We review de novo issues of statutory interpretation, Premier Physicians Grp., PLLC v. Navarro , , 194, ¶ 6, , 989 (2016), but defer to the tax court's factual findings if the record supports them.

In interpreting statutes, we give special care “to give effect to every clause and word.” Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 16 (2016).

“When possible, we seek to harmonize statutory provisions and avoid interpretations that result in contradictory provisions.” Premiere Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016); ¶ 14 (App. 2001) (statutory provisions must be “construed in context with related provisions and in light of their place in the statutory scheme”).

Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016) (statutes); ¶ 10 (2013) (court rules).

Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016).

See Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro , , ¶ 9, (when statute ambiguous, "we determine its meaning by considering secondary factors, such as ...

Premier Physicians Grp., -95, ¶ 6 (2016) (interpretation of statutes); Valerie M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

See Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016) (“When possible, we seek to harmonize statutory provisions and avoid interpretations that result in contradictory provisions.”).

Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 6 (2016) (statutes); ¶ 10 (2013) (court rules); ¶ 17 (2012) (constitutional issues).

See Premier Physicians Grp., ___, ¶ 9 (2016) (plain language of a statute is usually the best indicator of legislative intent and when it is clear, courts apply the plain language unless it would lead to absurd or unconstitutional results).