Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel
In Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, 149 Ariz. 442, 444-46, 719 P.2d 1058, 1060-62 (1986), the court construed a statute forbidding the admission of evidence of post-sale changes in the design or manufacture of a product in product liability actions to be consistent with Rule 407, which permits some uses of such evidence. Id. at 444-45, 719 P.2d at 1060-61.
State ex rel. Woods v. Filler, 169 Ariz. 224, 227-28, 818 P.2d 209, 212-13 (App. 1991) (holding that a statute that permitted hearsay testimony to establish probable cause was consistent with the purpose of the hearsay exceptions in Rules of Evidence 803 and 804);
State v. Leonard, 151 Ariz. 1, 5, 725 P.2d 493, 497 (App. 1986) (holding statute regarding the admissibility of blood alcohol test results did not conflict with the rules of evidence or engulf a general rule of admissibility);
United States v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 265, 278, 697 P.2d 658, 671 (1985) (holding that statutory provisions governing the appointment of a master, application of the rules of evidence, and the effect of prior judgments in water rights cases were supplementary provisions that did not "unreasonably limit or hamper" the judiciary's performance of its duties);
Church v. Rawson Drug &; Sundry Co., 173 Ariz. 342, 352-53, 842 P.2d 1355, 1365-66 (App. 1992) (holding that statute abolishing joint and several liability did not impinge on the court's rule-making power because all testimony and exhibits were still required to be admitted according to court rules).