Cited by

See also State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., ¶ 74 (App. 2007) (acknowledging the distinction between causes of action for damages under A.R.S.

§ 12-1832; -43, ¶ 37 (App. 2007) (“The purpose of a declaratory judgment action is to obtain a judicial determination of parties’ rights and obligations in a controversy prior to one party’s breach of those rights.”).

§ 12- 1842; see also State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., –43, ¶ 37 (App. 2007) (“The purpose of a declaratory judgment action is to obtain a judicial determination of parties’ rights and obligations in a controversy prior to one party’s breach of those rights.”).

The superior court should submit contract interpretation to a jury if the language is ambiguous, meaning “susceptible to more than one interpretation.” State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., LLC., ¶ 28 (App. 2007).

¶29 “Arizona law has only recognized a ‘taking’ of property where the government either assumes actual possession of the property or places a legal restraint upon the property that substantially diminishes or destroys the owner’s right to, and use and enjoyment of, the property.” State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., ¶ 35 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).

¶29 “Arizona law has only recognized a ‘taking’ of property where the government either assumes actual possession of the property or places a legal restraint upon the property that substantially diminishes or destroys the owner’s right to, and use and enjoyment of, the property.” State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., ¶ 35 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).

State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., –45, ¶¶ 47–53 (App. 2007).

See State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., LLC, § 23 (App. 2007) (“Where a contract’s language is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, the interpretation of the contract should be submitted to the jury.”).

Ltd., 45, ¶¶ 44-46, 54 (App. 2012) (finding counterclaim timely complied with "notice of claim" statute); State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., LLC, ¶¶ 45-46 (App. 2007) (discussing applicability of "notice of claim" statute to a counterclaim for injunctive relief).

¶¶ 48–53 (App. 2007); Martineau, 207 Ariz. at 335–37, ¶¶ 18–24.

§ 12–821.01(A), State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., ¶ 53 (App. 2007), the complaint must still set forth well-pleaded facts and not mere conclusory statements, Cullen v. Auto- Owners Ins.

Because there was no contractual ambiguity regarding the CEI Loan’s security, there was no factual issue for a jury to resolve.5 Cf. State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., ¶ 57 (App. 2007) (“Where interpretation of a contract is needed because its terms are reasonably susceptible to different meanings, the matter should be submitted to [a] jury.”).

¶ 12 (App. 2017) (holding strict compliance with § 12-821.01(A) applies when a plaintiff seeks monetary damages against a public entity), with State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., ¶¶ 52-53 (App. 2007) (holding § 12-821.01(A) does not apply when “a private party seeks an injunction restraining conduct by a public entity”), ¶ 25 (App. 2004) (holding 4 JACOBS v. MIHCS

Rather, the court should “consider the alleged interpretation of the agreement offered by the proponent of the extrinsic evidence in light of the extrinsic evidence offered.” State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., ¶ 28 (App. 2007).

Co., -59, -45 (1993); State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., ¶ 28

has only recognized a ‘taking’ of property where the government either assumes actual possession of the property or places a legal restraint upon the property that substantially diminishes or destroys the owner’s right to, and use and enjoyment of, the property.”) (emphasis added); State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., ¶ 35, (same).

See State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., L.L.C., ¶ 53, (injunctive relief); -37, ¶ 18-24, -17 (App. 2004) (declaratory action).

Fire Ins., Co., ¶ 12, (affirming, on de novo review, denial of judgment as a matter of law); State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., ¶ 23, (affirming, on de novo review, denial of motion for summary judgment).

State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., , 244 ¶ 46 n. 10, , 222 n. 10 (App.2007).

See State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., ¶ 74 , , 227 (App.2007) (“[T]here is a significant distinction between a cause of action for damages, such as that brought by Mabery pursuant to A.R.S.

¶ 74 , , 227 (App.2007) (noting “there is a significant distinction between a cause of action for damages ...

See, e.g., State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., , , 219 (App.2007) (applying rules of contract interpretation to easement agreement).

State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., ¶ 23 , , 217 (App.2007).

¶31 , ¶ 52 , , 223 (App.2007).

¶ 25 , ¶ 52 , , 223 (App.2007).