Court Opinion

ID: 9581538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:15:53.589701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:02.765171
License: Public Domain

LOCKWOOD, Chief Justice
(specially concurring):
Rules of statutory construction are merely guideposts for determining an ultimate result — the intent of the legislative body, when the language of the statute is not entirely clear.
In reading A.R.S. Sec. 5-110, subsec. C, it appears to me that the interpretation by the appellees and the intervenors is correct as a matter of syntax. Nevertheless, there is some logic to the argument of appellant that had the legislature intended to restrict daytime dog racing more severely than nighttime dog racing, it could have made the statute more specific by declaring that there should be no daytime dog racing within the State at any time that daytime horse racing has been conducted within the State prior to January 1, 1968.
The court is presented with a question of determining the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. However, if the intent of the legislature was opposite to the intent declared in this decision, there is no doubt the legislature can take such action as may be necessary to change the situation.
Therefore I am willing to concur in the opinion.
HAYS, J., joins in the above specially concurring opinion.