Cited by

(amicus curiae may not create, extend or enlarge issues) (citing cases).

(amicus curiae may not create, extend or enlarge issues) (citing cases).

(noting that dictum is “without force of adjudication” and “is not controlling as precedent”).

(“Dictum thrice repeated is still dictum.

98 Ariz. at 208–13; (defining dictum as “a court’s statement on a question not necessarily involved in the case”).

("[A] court's statement on a question not necessarily involved in the case and, hence, .

“[I]t is the rule that amici curiae are not permitted to create, extend, or enlarge issues beyond those raised and argued by the parties.” (citing City of Tempe v. Prudential Ins.

(because dicta is court’s statement on question not necessarily involved in case, it is not controlling as precedent).

JUSTICE COURT Opinion of the Court 925 P.2d at 693; (court’s statement on question not necessarily decided in case is dictum).

(stating that amici curiae may not create, extend, or enlarge the issues).

(amici curiae may not create, extend or enlarge issues).

(amici curiae may not create, extend or enlarge issues).

(amici curiae may not create, extend, or enlarge issues properly raised by the parties).

("[I]t is the rule that amici curiae are not permitted to create, extend, or enlarge issues beyond those raised and argued by the parties.”).

(appellate court only decides issues raised and argued by parties); City of Tempe v. Prudential Ins.

The GMA established Active Management Areas (“AMA”) in “geographical areas [of the state] where groundwater supplies are imperiled.” n.1, n.1 (1981).

¶ 21 , (court’s resolution of issue was necessary to decision and thus not dictum); , (court’s statement on question not necessarily involved in the case being decided is dictum), appeal dismissed, 457 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct.

In doing so, the trial court relied on opinions of this Court stating that “there is no right of ownership of groundwater in Arizona prior to its capture and withdrawal,” Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott (“Chino Valley II”), and that “water rights cannot be established or reserved for some potential future use,” In re the Rights to the Use of the Gila River Sys.

In Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott, the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “We therefore hold that there is no right of ownership of groundwater in Arizona prior to its capture and withdrawal from the common supply and that the right of the owner of the overlying land is simply to the usufruct 7 of the water.” , appeal dismissed, 457 U.S. 1101 , 102 S.Ct.

see also Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Water Res., , 149 n. 2, ¶ 13, , 1113 n. 2 (App.2005) (noting that usufruct is the “right to utilize and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another so long as the property is not damaged o

(dictum is court’s statement on question not necessarily involved in *36 case, is "without force of adjudication,” and "not controlling as precedent”).

The Act delineates as “Active Management Areas” (“AMAs”) several “geographical areas where groundwater supplies are imperiled.” , 80 n., , 1326 n. (1981) (“Chino Valley II”).