Cited by

“When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no need to resort to other methods of statutory interpretation to determine the legislature’s intent because its intent is readily discernable from the face of the statute.”

¶10 “When interpreting a constitutional provision, ‘we begin with the text,’ because it is ‘the best and most reliable index of a [provision’s] meaning.’” ¶ 59 (2021) (alteration in original) ( ¶ 6 (2003)).

¶ 8 n.8 (2003) (“For an offense to qualify as a ‘third or more prior felony conviction’ it must be the third conviction chronologically.”) (citation omitted).

“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” ¶ 16 (2013) ( ¶ 6 (2003)).

¶ 16 (2013) (“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” ( ¶ 6 (2003))); see also Stapert v. Arizona Bd.

¶59 When interpreting a constitutional provision, “we begin with the text” because it is “the best and most reliable index of a [provision’s] meaning.” ¶ 6 (2003).

¶ 8 (2011) ( ¶ 6 (2003)).

¶10 “We review a trial court’s grant of an injunction for an abuse of discretion,” –18 ¶ 8 (2016), and we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo, ¶ 6 (2003).

“[W]e begin with the text” because it is “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.” ¶ 6 (2003).

“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” ¶ 16 (2013) ( ¶ 6 (2003)).

“When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no need to resort to other methods of statutory interpretation to determine the legislature’s intent because its intent is readily discernable from the face of the statute.” ¶ 6 (2003); see also U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 12 (App. 1998).

See State v. Christian , , ¶ 6, ("[T]he best and most reliable index of a statute's meaning is the plain text of the statute."); cf. Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys.

See, ¶ 6 (2003) (“[T]he best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is the plain text of the statute.”).