Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., 637 P.2d 1088.

40 citing documents.

Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(quoting Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., (citation omitted)).
Tripodi v. Beaufeaux Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Tripodi v. Beaufeaux Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., (citation omitted).
Bates v. Bates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bates v. Bates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
BATES, et al. v. BATES, et al. Opinion of the Court FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶3 Because the probate court dismissed the lawsuit on motion to dismiss under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “we must accept” and thus recount “all material facts as alleged by the non-moving party as true.” Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Broadband v. Satcom 418 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Broadband v. Satcom 418 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
2014) (seller agreed to sell items to buyer on an 5 BROADBAND v. SATCOM, et al. Opinion of the Court open account; seller sued buyer for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, seeking over $5 million in damages), rev’d on other grounds, Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., (discussing dismissal, on other grounds, of plaintiff’s claims for collection “on an open account owed for certain printing delivered under the terms of the contract” and for damages “for the premature wrongful te
Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands 296 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands 296 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See Pickrell, 136 Ariz. at 594, 667 P.2d at 1309 (motion to dismiss should not be granted “‘unless it appears certain that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts susceptible of proof under the claim stated’”), quoting Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc. 202 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc. 202 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Facts and Procedural Background ¶2 “In our review of a motion to dismiss, we must accept all material facts as alleged by the non-moving party as true.” Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
P., a trial court should give the non-moving party “an opportunity to amend its complaint if such an amendment will cure its defects.” Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Universal Marketing & Entertainment, Inc. v. Bank One of Arizona, N.A. 53 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Universal Marketing & Entertainment, Inc. v. Bank One of Arizona, N.A. 53 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
A court should not dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) “unless it appears certain that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts susceptible of proof under the *268 claim stated.” Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Acker v. CSO CHEVIRA 934 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Acker v. CSO CHEVIRA 934 P.2d 816 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., , (citing In re Cassidy’s Estate, , ).
MacK v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. 880 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
MacK v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. 880 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc. 880 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc. 880 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Stanhope v. State 825 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Stanhope v. State 825 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
In reviewing the granting of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we will uPhold the court if aPPears certain that the Pontiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts suscePtlble of proof under the claim stated.” Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 744 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 744 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Frey v. Stoneman 722 P.2d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Frey v. Stoneman 722 P.2d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Donnelly Construction Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland 677 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland 677 P.2d 1292 Ariz. 1984
Donnelly Construction Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland 677 P.2d 1292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland 677 P.2d 1292 Ariz. 1984
Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell 667 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1983
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell 667 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1983
ions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are not favored under Arizona law,” , and should not be granted “unless it appears certain that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts susceptible of proof under the claim stated.” Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., , Chirco Construction Co. v. Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson
G.T. Helicopters, Inc. v. Helicopters, Ltd. 661 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
G.T. Helicopters, Inc. v. Helicopters, Ltd. 661 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
E.g., Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by