Cited by

¶ 21 (App. 2002); ¶ 8 (App. 2011).

P. 12(d); ¶ 8 (App. 2002) (motion converted when extrinsic matters presented and considered in the superior court’s ruling) (citation omitted).

¶ 23 (App. 2002) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26 cmt.

Further, we do not “rigidly” apply these doctrines, particularly “when their application would contravene an overriding public policy or result in manifest injustice.” ¶ 21 (App. 2002) (quoting Tipler v. E.I.

Judicial estoppel protects the integrity of the judicial system by “preventing a litigant from using the courts to gain an unfair advantage.” Towery, 186 Ariz. at 182; ¶¶ 19-21 (App. 2002) (explaining principles of estoppel can apply to decisions of administrative agencies acting in a quasi-judicial capacity).

& Constr., Inc., 226 P.3d at 1049 (Rule 56 treatment not required when court does not rely on proffered extraneous materials), (motion converted when extrinsic matters presented and considered in 6 ruling).6 BLI’s proffered exhibits were not admitted at the motions hearing, and the court did not refer to any extraneous materials in dismissing BLI’s claims again

would contravene an overriding public policy or result in manifest injustice.’” , quoting Tipler v. E.I.

would contravene an overriding public policy or result in manifest injustice.‟” quoting Tipler v. E.I.

¶ 7 , (evidence of party opposing summary judgment is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor; appellate review is de novo); ¶ 8 , (court's consideration of matters outside of complaint converts motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment).

Co., , (stating inclusion of matters outside the pleading in motion to dismiss alone not sufficient to convert motion to one for summary judgment as court has discretion under Rule 12(b) to disregard those matters); ¶ 8 , (treating motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment because trial court had converted motion when it considered matters outside pleading).

cson, ¶ 7 , (evidence of party opposing summary judgment is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn it its favor; appellate review is de novo); Bonner v. Minico, Inc., , (principles of summary judgment apply to factual issues affecting jurisdiction); ¶ 8 , (court’s consideration of matters outside of complaint converts motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment).

1; Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Comm’n

¶¶22, 25, ¶¶22, 25 (App. 2002).

¶ 11 , (explaining that questions whether a state cause of action is preempted by a federal statute “must be considered and resolved by the state court.”) (citation omitted).

¶ 21 , (when agency appropriately renders a decision in its quasi-judicial capacity, its determinations can have preclusive effect).