an award of fees on appeal or on this review. CAMERON, Justice, dissenting: I dissent for two reasons. First, I believe that under the statute involved that the state is a person and must comply with the county claims statute. As the majority cites: Since, in common usage, the term “person” does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it. But there is no hard and fast rule of exclusion. The purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation of the statute are aids to construction which may indicate an intent, by the use of the term, to bring state or nation within the scope of the law. United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604-05, 61 S.Ct. 742, 743-44, 85 L.Ed. 1071 (1941) (<HOLDING>). A.R.S. § 11-622 requires a person who has a
holding that the government is liable under the ftca in the same respect as a private person under the law of the place where the act occurred holding that a plaintiff may state a claim under the sherman act for a defendants enforcement of a patent procured by fraud on the pto where the plaintiff alleges deliberate fraud and the other elements of a monopolization claim under section 2 of the sherman act holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act holding treble damages under the civil theft statute are punitive holding that the use of the words any person was insufficient under the ordinary dignities of speech to authorize an action by the federal government for treble damages under the sherman act