Cited by

ontroversy ¶8 The Association argues Klatt lacked standing to file a declaratory judgment contesting the Amendment, asserting he did not raise a justiciable issue because he is not required to pay the Assessment and any damage to the marketability of his home is “theoretical.” “Whether a party has standing is a question of law we review de novo.” Pawn 1st, ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

¶12 “Whether a party has standing is a question of law we review de novo.” Pawn 1st, ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

See generally Pawn 1st, -13, ¶ 21 n.3 (App. 2013); Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 17 (App. 2016) (citations omitted).

See Pawn 1st, ¶ 18 (App. 2013) (citing Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 147 (2012) (under "series-qualifier" canon of interpretation, "[w]hen there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series, a prepositive or postpositive modifier no

Pawn 1st, ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

Pawn 1st, ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citing Ctr.

Pawn 1st, ¶ 11 , (citing Ctr.

Moreover, “[t]he legislative branch may expand standing by expressly modifying or abrogating prudential standing rules.” Pawn 1st, n.3, n.3 (App. 2013), (Mont.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 The underlying facts and procedural history of this case were stated in Pawn 1st, (Pawn I).

Cf. Pawn 1st, (“‘When there is a straightforward, parallel construction that involves all nouns or verbs in a series, a prepositive or postpositive modifier normally applies to the entire series.’”), quoting Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, at 147

In the absence of a comma separating “preparatory” from “for the benefit of,” we must read the singular, unitary provision, “preparatory for the benefit of,” as a non-restrictive clause modifying “any felony offense.” See Pawn 1st, ¶ 16, (“The plain meaning of a statute ‘will typically heed the commands of its punctuation.’”) (quoting U.S. Nat’l Bank v. Indep.

See Pawn 1st, ¶¶ 16, 19, -50 (App. 2013).