Cited by

¶ 17 (App. 2012) (citation omitted).

¶ 24 (App. 2012); ¶¶ 18-19 (2003) (recognizing the federal standing requirements, as adopted in Arizona, require “an actual case or controversy”).

¶¶ 75, 79 (App. 2012) (quoting Fields, ¶¶ 18, 21).

¶ 79 (App. 2012) (quoting Fields, 206 Ariz. at 138 ¶ 21)—such as whether to hire a consultant, how much to pay it, and whom to hire—are similarly classified as non-privileged administrative tasks, id.

¶ 82 (App. 2012); Belen Loan Inv’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2012).

¶ 82 (App. 2012); see also Belen Loan Inv’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (recognizing issues not clearly raised and argued on appeal are waived and declining to address the dismissal of a claim with respect to which the appellant made no specific argument).

Flying Diamond Airpark, ¶ 9 , (injunctive relief); ¶ 9 , (mandamus relief); ¶ 5 , (noting federal preemption is a question of law); ¶¶ 17, 19 , (reviewing the superior court’s interpretation of statutes and whether summary judgment was warranted de novo).

¶¶ 38-39, 290 9 ARRETT v. BOWER Opinion of the Court P.3d 1226, 1238 (App. 2012).

¶ 82, see generally ARCAP 13(a)(5), (6).