Cited by

for Magma Copper Co., ).

for Magma Copper Co., ).

for Magma Copper Co., Ruth v. Indus.

for Magma Copper Co., and we “construe statutes, when possible, to avoid constitutional difficulties,” ¶ 28 (2006).

for Magma Copper Co., Richter v. Dairy Queen of S. Ariz., Inc.

for Magma Copper Co., we previously rejected a preemption challenge based on the CSA in Reed-Kaliher, 237 Ariz. at 123–25 ¶¶ 18–24, and the State offers no persuasive reason to revisit that decision.

(Legislature “may not, under the guise of ‘regulation,’ so affect the fundamental right to sue for damages as to effectively deprive the claimant of the ability to bring the action”) (citation omitted).

for Magma Copper Co., ).

limits its damages, and the provision does not prevent Qwest from being sued for willful conduct or gross negligence, see Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C., ¶ 21, (“[L]imiting recovery does not violate the anti-abrogation clause unless it ‘completely abolishe[s]’ the cause of action.”) (quoting Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp., Magma Copper, ), the tariff provision does not violate the constitutional anti-abrogation provision.

for Magma Copper Co., (alteration in Duncan).

for Magma Copper Co., , (alteration in Lindsay).

for Magma Copper Co., , (argument first raised on appeal considered, in part, because issue did not "turn[ ] upon disputed evidence”).

The legislature may not, “under the guise of ‘regulation,’ so affect the fundamental right to sue for damages as to effectively deprive the claimant of the ability to bring the action.”

Public Policy ¶ 18 Laryn’s final argument is that because the ruling denies his claim for medical expenses, “he is left with no remedy” in violation of Article 18, Section 6, 6 and Article 2, Section 13, 7

for Magma Copper Co., -07 , -86 (1984) (applying Article 18, Section 6 to a medical malpractice claim); -83 , -75 (1984) (same).

for Magma Copper Co., , this is a rule of prudence, not of jurisdiction.

for Magma Copper Co., , an example we have followed in reaching unbriefed but dispositive issues which *209 require no additional facts.

An exception exists, however, for issues that are of great public importance or likely to reoccur.” ( )).

Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp., Magma Copper