Cited by

likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable harm if the relief is not granted, (3) the balance of hardships favors the party seeking injunctive relief, and (4) public policy 6 ARBORCRAFT v. ARIZONA URBAN, et al. Decision of the Court favors granting the injunctive relief.” ¶ 16 (2021).

See Leibsohn, 254 Ariz. at 4, ¶ 10; ¶¶ 26-27 (2021) (interpreting a statutory phrase based on context after noting competing dictionary definitions of "grant"); ¶ 8 (2015) ("[I]f the language is ambiguous, we look to the statute's history, context, consequences, and purpose.").

to remedy harms compensable by monetary damages.” ¶13 A preliminary injunction is appropriate if plaintiffs show “(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable harm if the relief is not granted, (3) the balance of hardships favors the party seeking injunctive relief, and (4) the public policy favors granting the injunctive relief.” (citations omitted).

case requires us to interpret article 4, part 1, section 1(3) of the Arizona Constitution (“section 1(3)”) and the referendum power, both issues of statewide importance that would become moot if this Court’s review were delayed until after the November 8, 2022 General 1 The Maricopa County Superior Court invalidated Prop 208 in March 2022, ¶ 65 (2021).

We presume the statute's constitutionality, ¶ 23 (2021), and the complaining party must demonstrate its invalidity, Hall v. Elected Officials' Ret.

y construed”—Pinal County’s two tiered retail TPT structure as part of a transportation excise tax is unlawful 4 Although the Resolution, publicity pamphlet, and ballot language attempted to characterize the nature of the transportation excise tax on retail sales as a “variable or modified rate,” this language “will not bind nor limit the Court’s determination of its meaning.” ¶ 24 (2021) (“[I]t is the judiciary’s exclusive power to state what the law is.”).