of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 U.S. 468, 479, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 (1989))). The TAA prohibits appeal of an order “vacating an award without directing a rehearing”; the FAA omits “without directing a rehearing” from its appellate provision. Compare 9 U.S.C. § 16, with Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 171.098(a)(5). That the Court’s interpretation leads to an identical result under both statutes only highlights the fact that the words “without directing a rehearing” are now superfluous under Texas law. See Vondergoltz, 14 S.W.3d at 331 (“To hold [that an appeal was allowed] would render the language “without directing a rehearing’ without effect and would elevate form over substance. ...”); see also First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Combs, 258 S.W.3d 627, 631 (Tex.2008) (<HOLDING>). The Court and the concurrence rewrite the TAA
holding that courts must give effect to every word when interpreting a statute recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims holding principle of statutory construction is to give effect to every clause and word of a statute holding that a court must interpret the words of a statute according to their common meaning in a way that gives effect to every word clause and sentence internal quotations omitted holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute