Cited by

¶ 12 (2015) (“If the statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.”).

“If the [ordinance] is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis,” Glazer v. State (Glazer I), ¶ 12 (2015), unless the results are absurd or impossible.

¶ 12 (2015) (“If the statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.”).

If the Plan is “subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 12 (2015).

If the Plan is “subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 12 (2015).

“Although a court has the discretion to hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to address admissibility under Arizona Rule of Evidence 702, such a hearing is not mandatory.” ¶ 28 (App. 2014) (emphasis added), vacated in part on other grounds, ¶ 36 (2015).

“If a statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 12 (2015).

¶ 29 5 HELMREICH, et al. v. AHC, et al. Decision of the Court (2015) (explaining that the standards for granting judgment as a matter of law and a motion for summary judgment are the same).

¶21 This court reviews de novo a superior court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, ¶ 29 (2015), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C.

“If the statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 12 (2015).

But that case, vacated in part, is irrelevant here.

¶ 29 (2015) (“The standards for granting or denying a motion for JMOL and a motion for summary judgment are the same.”).

If the language of a statute is unambiguous, “we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 12 (2015).

¶9 “We review the interpretation of a statute de novo.” ¶ 12 (2015).

¶ 12 (2015) (citing Doe, 200 Ariz. at 176, ¶ 4).

Accepting that invitation, the legislature enacted the Actions Against Public Entities or Public Employees Act, see Glazer v. State , , ¶¶ 10-11, which limits actionable injuries to those a *957 "person may suffer ...

See Glazer v. State (Glazer I)