Cited by

¶26 “The most reliable indicator of that intent is the language of the statute, and if it is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning and the inquiry ends.” ¶ 5 (2019).

See Cao v. PFP Dorsey Invs., LLC, ¶ 28 (2024) (“‘All’ means all—not less than all.”); ¶ 9 12 WALDEN, et al. v. MESA UNIFIED, et al. Opinion of the Court (2019) (“The word ‘all,’ one of the most comprehensive words in the English language, means exactly that.”).

Co., (“Where the language of a statute passed by voter initiative ‘is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning and the inquiry 4 REILLY v. CANALE Opinion of the Court ends.’” ()).

“The word ‘all,’ one of the most comprehensive words in the English language, means exactly that.” ¶ 9 (2019).

“The most reliable indicator of that intent is the language of the statute, and if it is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning and the inquiry ends.” ¶ 5 (2019).

DISCUSSION ¶19 “We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” ¶ 11 (2024) ( ¶ 5 (2019)).

¶ 5 (2019); Reuben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

DISCUSSION ¶11 “We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” ¶ 5 (2019) ( ¶ 6 (2015)).

“The most reliable indicator of that intent is the language of the statute, and if it is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain meaning and the inquiry ends.”

¶9 In interpreting a voter-passed initiative, our “primary objective ‘is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.’” ().

State v. (Rodney C.) Jones, ¶ 5 (2019).

§ 13-105(22)(c); ¶ 5 (2019) (we apply the plain meaning to 4 STATE v. SHAKIR Decision of the Court statutory language that is clear and unambiguous).

DISCUSSION ¶4 In State v. Jones (“Jones II”), ¶ 10 (2019), issued after the judgment in this case, our supreme court overruled Jones I, holding that the AMMA’s definition of marijuana includes cannabis and its protections apply to cannabis-related crimes.

¶ 19 (2019), our supreme court agreed that the AMMA's definition of marijuana includes cannabis.