Cited by

Co., 128 Ariz. at 473, is necessarily broader than the requirement an action “arise out of a contract” in a fee-shifting context, see Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, (“Absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to displace a common-law cause of action, ‘we interpret statutes with every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law.’” (quoting Pleak v. Entrada Prop.

Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, (“It is not the function of the courts to rewrite statutes.” ()).

Safety, ¶ 12 (2015) (refusing to apply a meaning that “leads to impossible or absurd results”) (quoting Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 9 (2014)).

See Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 20 (2014).

the law’s text or at least the legislative record should say so explicitly.” Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 10 (2014) (quotation and citation omitted).

–32 ¶ 11 (2015) (“It is not the function of the courts to rewrite statutes.” (quoting Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 11 (2014))).

[including] former customers, with whom Orca no longer does business”), decision aff’d and depublished in part, ¶ 23 (2014) (depublishing ¶¶ 28-31); see also Hilb, 190 Ariz. at 216 (finding the employer had no protectable interest in a former client).

Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 10 (2014).

See Orca Communications Unlimited, ¶ 17 (2014) (in construing a uniform act statute, a court should consider decisions from other jurisdictions).

Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 11 (2014) (“The choice of the appropriate wording rests with the Legislature, and the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature.”) ().

See Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 10 (2014).

Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 6

Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 6, (citation omitted).

We apply the terms of a statute “without resorting to other tools of statutory interpretation, unless doing so leads to impossible or absurd results.” Orca Comm’ns Ultd., ¶ 9 (2014).

¶9 When a statute is unambiguous, “we apply its terms without resorting to other tools of statutory interpretation, unless doing so leads to impossible or absurd results.” ¶ 12, (quoting Orca Commc'ns Unlimited, ¶ 9, ).

Orca Communications Unlimited, ¶ 6 (2014); ¶ 7 (2012).

Comm’n, ¶ 7 , and Orea Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 9 , ) (internal quotations omitted).

“It is not the function of the courts to rewrite statutes,” Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 11, ( ), and we decline to do so here.

“If a statute is unambiguous, we apply its terms without resorting to other tools of statutory interpretation, unless doing so leads to impossible or absurd results.” Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 9

“Absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to displace a common- law cause of action, ‘we interpret statutes with every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law.’” Orca Commc’ns Unlimited, ¶ 10, (quoting Pleak v. Entrada Prop.