Cited by

See City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶¶ 13–14 (2019) (applying expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon, which means “expression of one item implies the exclusion of others”).

See City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶¶ 9, 11–12 (2019) (in special action proceeding, concluding A.R.S.

¶18 Burns argues that, by affirming the Commission’s decision not to enforce his subpoenas, the superior court improperly granted the Commission an implied power to “nullify[] their fellow commissioners’ investigatory subpoenas or requests to call and question witnesses in a rate case.” See City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 20 (2019) (noting that Commission “has no implied powers and its powers do not exceed those to be derived from a strict construction of the Constitution and implement

City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 10 (2019) (statutory interpretation); ¶ 8 (2014) (constitutional questions).

“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius—the expression of one item implies the exclusion of others—is appropriate when one term is reasonably understood as an expression of all terms included in the statutory grant or prohibition.” City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 13 (2019).

See City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 13 (2019) (“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius—the expression of one item implies the exclusion of others—is appropriate when one term is reasonably understood as an expression of all terms included in the statutory grant or prohibition.”).

City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 10 (2019) (statutes); ¶ 8 (2014) (constitutional questions); Valley Med.

ordinances are to be construed by the same rules and principles which govern the construction of statutes,” and “we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo, seeking to effectuate the drafters’ intent.” City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 10 (2019).