Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Frey v. Stoneman, 722 P.2d 274.

58 citing documents.

Accursio v. Tree House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Accursio v. Tree House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Co., (relying on Restatement § 675 in explaining “probable cause” element of malicious prosecution claim); (analyzing Restatement § 674 in determining “probable cause” element of malicious prosecution claim).
Potter v. Arizona House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Potter v. Arizona House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Blk III, LLC v. Skelton 506 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Blk III, LLC v. Skelton 506 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“Because evidence extrinsic to the pleadings was offered to and relied on by the trial judge in making this decision, the motion to dismiss should have been treated as one for summary judgment.”); State Comp.
Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
by (1) the favorable adjudication of the claim by a competent tribunal, or (2) the withdrawal of the proceedings by the person bringing them, or (3) the dismissal of the proceedings because of his failure to prosecute them.” (quoting Restatement § 674 cmt.
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
This is commonly called a “case within the case.”
Kopp v. Physicians Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kopp v. Physicians Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 12(d); -09, -77 (1986), cited in Drew v. Prescott Unified Sch.
Verde v. Stoneking Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Verde v. Stoneking Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- 09 (1986) (holding that when “evidence extrinsic to the pleadings was 2 The superior court references “Plaintiff’s” claim at this point, but we assume from the context that the court meant “Defendant’s” or “Stoneking’s” claim.
Snyder v. banner/goel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Snyder v. banner/goel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Rule 12(b)(6) (motions to dismiss); 12(c) (motions for judgment on the pleadings)
Kost v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kost v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
P. 12(b); -09, -77 (1986).
Drew v. Prescott Unified School District 314 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Drew v. Prescott Unified School District 314 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
P. 12(b); -09 , -77 (1986).
Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
P. 12(b); -09 , -77 (1986).
Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC 226 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC 226 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Backus v. State 204 P.3d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Backus v. State 204 P.3d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
P. 12(b); , (“Because evidence extrinsic to the pleadings was offered to and relied on by the trial judge in making this decision, the motion to dismiss should have been treated as one for summary judgment.”).
Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
P. 12(b); -09 , -77 (1986).
Wolfinger v. Cheche 80 P.3d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Wolfinger v. Cheche 80 P.3d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 51 More directly, , our supreme court expressly determined that “[a] dismissal for failure to prosecute is not procedural, and is a favorable termination which indicates the innocence of the accused if it reflects on the merits of the action.” This is consistent with the Restatement: Civil proceedings may
Johnson v. Mohave County 78 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Johnson v. Mohave County 78 P.3d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 947 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Moretto v. Samaritan Health System 947 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
1837 , 128 L.Ed.2d 465 (1994)(applying rule to statute of limitations defense); see also Rule 12(b); Rule 12(c); -09 , -77 (1986) (stating general rule that consideration of evidence extrinsic to pleadings converts motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment).
Lane v. TERRY H. PILLINGER, PC 939 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Lane v. TERRY H. PILLINGER, PC 939 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Prince v. City of Apache Junction 912 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Prince v. City of Apache Junction 912 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Rule 12(b)(6) (When matters outside the pleadings are submitted and the trial court does not exclude such matters, a motion for dismissal “shall be treated as one for summary judgment ...
Cella Barr Associates, Inc. v. Cohen 868 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Cella Barr Associates, Inc. v. Cohen 868 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gomez v. Maricopa County 857 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Gomez v. Maricopa County 857 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
STATE LAW CLAIMS Standard of Review Because the trial court considered evidence extrinsic to the pleadings in determining there was no jurisdiction, we will treat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, , to determine whether there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to raise an issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff filed an adequate, timely notice of claim.