Cited by

¶19 Courts “disfavor statute of limitations defenses, preferring instead to resolve litigation on the merits when possible.” City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5 (App. 2008).

See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 88 (App. 2008) (inadequately developed arguments are waived).

City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 65 (App. 2008); see also Montano, 250 Ariz. at 406, ¶ 14 (We apply Clear Channel’s review in the FED context.).

¶16 An appellate court reviews de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss, ¶ 6 (App. 2017), as well as “questions of law regarding statute of limitations defenses,” City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5 (App. 2008).

See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 65 (App. 2008).

Furthermore, this court will “avoid an interpretation that makes ‘any language superfluous or redundant.’” City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., (quoting Thomas & King, ).

See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 4 n.1 (App. 2008).

See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 33 (App. 2008) (“When interpreting a term, we apply a practical and commonsensical construction.”) (cleaned up).

City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2008) (motion to dismiss); ¶ 7 (App. 2019) (claim preclusion).

¶15 “’When interpreting a statute, we look first to the plain language because that is “the best and most reliable indicator of a statute’s meaning.”’” ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (quoting City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2008)).

City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 58 (App. 2008).

City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 58 (App. 2008).

hysical, psychological, or mental health treatment or therapy from any licensed professional.” DISCUSSION ¶6 We accept the superior court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, Nordstrom, ¶ 18 (App. 2004), but review its legal conclusions de novo, see City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 27 (App. 2008).

Drahos Calculation ¶18 “A factual finding is clearly erroneous if no substantial evidence supports it.” City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 58 (App. 2008).

City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. , , ¶ 13

¶7 We review de novo both the superior court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, ¶ 6 (App. 2017), as well as questions of law regarding statute of limitations defenses, City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 5 (App. 2008).

Although we defer to the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, ¶ 13 (App. 2015) (citing City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 58 (App. 2008)), we are not bound by its conclusions of law, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).

See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. , , ¶ 58, (court abuses discretion if it commits error of law).

City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 65 (App. 2008).

3(c), and a court abuses its discretion if it commits an error of law, City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. , , ¶ 58

See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 88 (App. 2008) (noting that an appellate court will not address issues or arguments waived by party’s failure to develop them adequately); see also ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (stating that the opening brief must include an “[a]ppellant’s contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons fo

"A factual finding is clearly erroneous if no substantial evidence supports it," City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 58 (App. 2008), or "when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."

Although we defer to the court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, Schickner, 237 Ariz. at 197, ¶ 13 (citing City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 58 (App. 2008)), we are not bound by its conclusions of law, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).

See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 88 (App. 2008) (noting that an appellate court will not address issues or arguments waived by party’s failure to develop them adequately); see also ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (stating that the opening brief must include an “[a]ppellant’s contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons fo

City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., , 178 ¶ 5