Cited by

See Williams v. Thude , , 259, , 1351 (1997) (directing statutes be construed so that "[e]ach word, phrase, clause, and sentence of a statute [is] given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial") (quoting City of Phx.

Thus, “whenever and in whatever form the [contributory negligence] defense is permitted to exist, a fact question arises that ’shall, at all times, be left to the jury.’” (emphasis added).

In civil cases, however, we have “recognize[d] that the ‘fundamental error’ doctrine should be used sparingly, if at all.”

(noting court construes statutes to avoid rendering portions superfluous); (rejecting an interpretation that would render the statute in question “essentially meaningless”).

(noting court construes statutes to avoid rendering portions superfluous); (rejecting an interpretation that would render the statute in question “essentially meaningless”).

(noting we construe statutes so as to avoid rendering portions of them superfluous); , (interpreting a statute to give each word, phrase and clause meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial).

-10 , -63 (App.1989); , (" ‘fundamental error’ doctrine,” permitting lim *399 ited review of alleged errors not raised below, “should be used sparingly, if at all, in civil cases”); Bradshaw v. State Farm Mut.

See, , (courts avoid statutory construction rendering clause void, inert, redundant, or trivial).

Thus, this question is not one of proximate cause that could exonerate the defendants from liability as a matter of law but one of “the existence and application of contributory negligence,” on which the jury is “the sole arbiter.”

so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial’ ”

so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial.’”

must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.” ( , )).

*239 Each word and phrase of the statute “must be given meaning so that no part of it will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”

(alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) ( , ).

so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial.” , (quotations omitted, emphasis removed).

(“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial.”) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) ( , ).

“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.” (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) ( ).

Williams v. Thude, 188 Ariz. 257, 258, (“‘Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence of a statute must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.’”) (emphasis omitted)

P.2d 1096 (App. 1994), aff’d, P.2d 1349 (1997).

aff 'd, , : Gross, willful, or wanton conduct is action or inaction with reckless indifference to the result or the rights or safety of others.

(“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”) (citation and emphasis omitted); ¶ 19 , (principles of statutory construction also apply to a

P.2d 1096 (App. 1994), approved and explained in Williams v. Thude (Williams II), 188 Ariz. 257, 260

review granted in part (1994), aff'd, , Ariz. R. Civ.

(“[T]he ‘fundamental error’ doctrine should be used sparingly, if at all, in civil cases.”); Hall v. A.N.R.

§ 13-603(A), it would have been unnecessary for the legislature to have specified that forfeiture is effective only after conviction, , (construing statute so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial).

“Gross negligence and wanton conduct have generally been treated as one and the same.”

(before 1984 adoption of comparative fault, “[a]s a practical matter, ...

¶27 We believe that the recording of the deed is not, by itself, sufficient to require valuation under section 42-146(A) because such a , (“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.” [citation omitted]).