Cited by

it did not qualify as a “person” or “enterprise” under A.R.S.

(second alteration in Est. of Braden) ().

see In re Drummond, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 9, (when interpreting statutes, “[w]e do not view statutory words in isolation, but rather draw their meaning from the context in which they are used” (quoting DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma Cnty.

¶ 8 (2011))); ¶ 90 (2021) (Bolick, J., dissenting) (“[W]hen a legislature amends a provision by making a significant change in language, we presume it intended a different meaning.”).

¶ 30 (2011) (Bales, J., dissenting).

¶ 8 (2011) ( ¶ 6 (2003)).

¶ 13 (2011) (noscitur a sociis canon “dictates that a statutory term is interpreted in context of the accompanying words”)).

¶ 8 (2011), the other words of the Exclusion are so different in kind from the term “domestic animals” that they shed little light on its most reasonable interpretation.

¶ 13 (2011); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 195–96 (2012) (discussing the noscitur a sociis canon and stating that it “especially holds that ‘words grouped in a list should be given related meanings’” (quoting Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville v. Impac Ltd.

–26 ¶¶ 8, 12 (2011) (stating that the Court does not “consider words in isolation when interpreting statutes” and that “[s]tatutory terms .

¶ 13 (2011) (noting that “a statutory term is interpreted in context of the accompanying words”).

326 ¶ 12, (stating that the courts do not consider words in isolation when interpreting statutes).

¶ 12 (2011) (“We do not .

(goal in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the legislature).