context: P 6 Section 11-972(B) provides that, when a trial court in an inverse condemnation action initiated "because of [an] alleged physical taking" awards compensation to the landowner "for the physical taking of property," the landowner is entitled to reim bursement for reasonable costs and litigation expenses. The plain and unambiguous language of the statute establishes, therefore, that SS 11-972(B) applies only to physical takings.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 874 P.2d 962, 964
citation_a.parenthetical: "We presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision."
citation_a.sentence: See Simpson v. Simpson, 224 Ariz. 224, ¶ 6, 229 P.3d 236, 237 (App.2010) (court will not interpret statute in manner rendering any word, phrase, or clause meaningless); see also State v. Pitts, 178 Ariz. 405, 407, 874 P.2d 962, 964 (1994) (“We presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 229 P.3d 236, 237
citation_b.parenthetical: court will not interpret statute in manner rendering any word, phrase, or clause meaningless
citation_b.sentence: See Simpson v. Simpson, 224 Ariz. 224, ¶ 6, 229 P.3d 236, 237 (App.2010) (court will not interpret statute in manner rendering any word, phrase, or clause meaningless); see also State v. Pitts, 178 Ariz. 405, 407, 874 P.2d 962, 964 (1994) (“We presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision.”).