Cited by

When the text is clear and unambiguous, we need not resort to other methods of statutory interpretation to discern the legislature’s intent because “its intent is readily discernable from the face of the statute.” Id.; , 327 ¶ 16, (if a statute’s language is clear, “it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results”).

When the text is clear and unambiguous, we need not resort to other methods of statutory interpretation to discern the legislature’s intent because “its intent is readily discernable from the face of the statute.” Id.; ¶ 16, (if a statute’s language is clear, “it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results”).

Accordingly, although the trial court properly instructed the jury pursuant to Simpson, 173 P.3d at 1030, (“Trial courts are required to follow the decisions of a higher court .

That federal securities laws specify a different remedy than that provided for under Arizona law gives us “good reason to depart from that authority.” ¶ 18 , (noting federal law is persuasive in interpretation of Arizona securities laws only where provisions and underlying policies are similar) (citing State v. Gunni *467 son, -13 , ).

¶ 23 , (construing § 44-2001).