DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256.

44 citing documents.

  • Stauffer v. Premier Service Mortgage, LLC 382 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Stauffer v. Premier Service Mortgage, LLC 382 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    The court, however, does not “accept as true allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well- pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts.” ¶ 4
  • Zeman v. Baumkirchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Zeman v. Baumkirchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    The court, however, does not “accept as true allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts.” ¶ 4
  • Baiker v. Kaplan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Baiker v. Kaplan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    “[W]e do not accept as true allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts.”
  • Pedco v. Under the Tent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Pedco v. Under the Tent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    The court does not “accept as true allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts.” ¶ 4
  • Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    In applying this principle, we have held that plaintiffs could seek emotional damages for the destruction of their fertilized human eggs, ¶¶ 73-75, and for suffering, as a tenant, the annoyance and discomfort of living in inadequate housing
  • Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro 357 P.3d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro 357 P.3d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    403 n. 23, ¶ 76, , 1273 n. 23 (App.2005).
  • Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    of action, including conversion; trespass; civil conspiracy; fraud; fraudulent concealment; negligent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; intentional interference with business relationships; defamation;3 and intentional 1 In reviewing a motion to dismiss, “we review the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint as true,” ¶ 4, and resolve all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
  • Compassionate v. adhs/nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Compassionate v. adhs/nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “However, we do not accept as true allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts.” ¶ 4
  • Glava v. Jpmorgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Glava v. Jpmorgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    2 In reviewing a motion to dismiss, “we review the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint as true,” ¶ 4, and resolve all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
  • Collins v. Valley Metro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Collins v. Valley Metro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    1 In reviewing a motion to dismiss, “we review the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint as true,” ¶ 4, and resolve all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
  • Florence v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Florence v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “[W]e do not accept as true allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts.” ¶ 4
  • Abbott v. Banner Health Network 341 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Abbott v. Banner Health Network 341 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Anderson v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Anderson v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    We do not accept as true, however, “inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts” or “unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts.” ¶ 4, (citation omitted).
  • Café Valley, Inc. v. Navidi 330 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Café Valley, Inc. v. Navidi 330 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Southwest Non-Profit Housing Corporation v. Nowak, Kniffen, Martell 322 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Southwest Non-Profit Housing Corporation v. Nowak, Kniffen, Martell 322 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    Moreover, “we do not accept as true allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts.”
  • Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    McCutchen, 147 Ariz. at 404 , 710 P.2d at 1059 ; see Lloyd, 176 Ariz. at 250 , 860 P.2d at 1303 (citing McCutchen , the court held that § 323 liability includes economic harm as well as physical ham); , 402, ¶ 70, (a person assuming a duty under § 323 may, in addition to liability for physical harm, be liable for economic harm); Renteria v. United States, 452 F.Supp.2d 910, 914 (D.Ariz.
  • Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    403 n. 23, , 1273 n. 23 (App.2005) (citation omitted).
  • Kaufman v. Langhofer 222 P.3d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Kaufman v. Langhofer 222 P.3d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    Co., , , , Kaufman and amici argue even if pets are considered personal property, these eases recognize a property owner may recover emotional distress damages when his or her property is negligently damaged or destroyed.
  • Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    Although the trial court considered and rejected this argument, we “avoid addressing constitutional issues relating to a statute unless absolutely necessary to resolve a case.” , n. 23, , 1273 n. 23 (App.2005).
  • Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    399, ¶ 54, (expansion of definition of viability for wrongful death claim involves policy determinations best left to Legislature).