Cited by

Our supreme court has explained that “the legislature intended the [Arizona Securities Act] ‘as a remedial measure’ for the ‘protection of the public’ and therefore specified that the act be ‘liberally construed.’” ¶ 16 (2010) (citing 1951 Ariz. Sess.

¶ 20 n.1 (2010) (“In evaluating motions to dismiss, Arizona courts consider only the ‘well-pled facts,’ not legal conclusions.”).

¶ 34, (finding no abuse of discretion in denying motion to amend given “the long history” of the case and the party’s “considered decision to abandon” a claim); Lans v. Digital Equip.

1979 , 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990) (“[T]he ordinary meaning of ‘restitution’ is restoring someone to a position he occupied before a particular event.”), and the stated intent of the ASA as a remedial measure that should be liberally construed for the protection of the public, Grand, 225 Ariz. at 174, ¶ 16, (quoting 1951 Ariz. Sess.

¶ 14 Contrary to the Cities’ argument, rejecting their interpretation of the repealing act does not render the retroactive effective date “a nullity.” -76, ¶ 22 , -03 (2010) (“We ordinarily do not construe statutes so as to render portions of them superfluous.” (citation omitted)).

See, n.1, ¶ 20, n.1 (2010); see also Aldabbagh, 162 Ariz. at 417, 783 P.2d at 1209 (recognizing that a court need not accept unwarranted deductions of fact or conclusions of law).

§ 44-2001(A).” ¶ 12, 5 (2010).

-76, ¶ 22 , -03 (2010) (“We ordinarily do not construe statutes so as to render portions of them superfluous.”).

-76, ¶ 22 , -03 (2010) (in banc) (“We ordinarily do not construe statutes so as to render portions of them superfluous.”).

-76, ¶ 22 , -03 (2010) (“We ordinarily do not construe statutes so as to render portions of them superfluous.”).

by offering for consideration persuasive advantages or gains that bring about a desired decision____’” -22 , -33 (1997), quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1154 (1969), ¶¶ 19, 22