Cited by

Worldwide Jet Charter, ¶ 10 (App. 2023); ¶ 26 (App. 2001).

See Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corr., 244 (App.1997); ¶ 27 (App. 2001).3 ¶37 The trial court found that, based on the record, it could not make the necessary findings of fact to support an award under § 12-349.

See Felipe, 235 Ariz. at 524, ¶ 10; ¶ 27 (App. 2001) (stating that, with respect to A.R.S.

¶ 23 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 27 (App. 2001).

§ 12-349 de novo , City of Casa Grande v. Ariz. Water Co. , , 555, ¶ 27, , 598 (App. 2001) (citations omitted).

¶ 23 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 27 (App. 2001)).

¶ 6 , (appellate court reviews de novo interpretation of a statute) (citation omitted); ¶ 7 , (dismissal of complaint reviewed de novo) (citations omitted).

554, ¶¶ 4, 22, 597 (App. 2001) (affirming trial court's dismissal even though defendant had not filed motion to dismiss).

§ 12-349, “the 7 CORNERSTONE v. KOZUB Decision of the Court award of attorney fees becomes mandatory”); ¶27, (noting A.R.S.

¶ 43 , in which we likewise concluded that A.R.S.

¶ 16.7 ¶21 “When a statute’s language is clear, we need not look beyond its plain language to determine its meaning.” City of Casa Grande v. Ariz. Water Co., 199 Ariz. 547, ¶ 22

We also consider the statute “„in the context of the entire statutory scheme of which it is a part,‟” striving to “achieve consistency among related statutes.”

Flying Diamond Airpark, ¶ 9 , ¶ 27

¶ 27 , (stating that this court reviews the trial court’s findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard, but its application of § 12-349 is a question of law reviewed de novo).

sdale (Home Builders I), , (holding that municipalities “may not use fees for any purpose or in any manner that will not meet the statutory requirements”); Home Builders III, 187 Ariz. at 482 , 930 P.2d at 996 (analyzing an ordinance to determine “whether the fee conferred a benefit as required by the statute”); ¶ 9 , (holding that an ordinance that conflicts with a statute is invalid).