Cited by

See Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 15 (2014).

Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, –25 ¶ 11 (2014).

However, “if the statute is ambiguous, we consider secondary principles of statutory interpretation, such as the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, its historical background, its effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose.” Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11 (2014) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(quoting Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11 (2014)).

4 FRANKLIN v. CSAA GENERAL INSURANCE Opinion of the Court Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11 (2014) ().

(stating that “the testimony or opinions of individual members of the legislative body are not admissible” for discerning legislative intent); ¶ 12 (2014) (observing that “a legislator, lobbyist, or other interested party lacks competence to testify about legislative intent in passing a law”).

Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11 (2014).

Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11 (2014).

See City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 10 (2019); Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11 (2014).

See Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11 (2014).

Polk v. Campbell , , 406 ¶ 5, , 930 (2016) (quoting Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n v. Brain , , 325 ¶ 11, , 142 (2014) ).

Instead, it is ambiguous when it is open to multiple reasonable interpretations, see Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 13 (2014), and when its meaning is not evident after examining the statute’s text as a whole or considering statutes relating to the same subject or general purpose, ¶ 7 (2018).

¶ 5 (2016) (citation and internal quotations omitted) (quoting Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11 (2014)).

quoting Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n

Cf. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11

Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11

Because the Coles Defendants’ argument presents issues of statutory interpretation, we exercise de novo review, and, as explained, we agree the statute barred the Investors’ request for a constructive trust.4 See Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11, Republic Nat.

To do this, we exercise de novo review, Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11 , 4 and, in exercising this review, we are not bound by the parties’ legal arguments.

& Loan Ass’n, cf. Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, (Bales, J., dissenting) (“When .

Comm’n v. Brain, , -42 (2014).

First, when, as is the ease here, a statute may reasonably be construed in more than one way, “determining its meaning is not advanced by assertions that one plausible interpretation must be right because it reflects the ‘plain meaning.’ ” Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 34 , (Bales, J., dissenting).

Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11

See Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, ¶ 11

Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain

Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain