Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce, 988 P.2d 143.
- Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. johnson/fox 565 P.3d 236 Ariz. 2025
-
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. johnson/fox
565 P.3d 236
Ariz. 2025
¶9 A party is entitled to judgment on the pleadings when a “complaint fails to state a claim for relief.” ¶ 2 (App. 1999).
- Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Plea v. Phoenix
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
of Pima, ¶ 5 (App. 2024) ( ¶ 2 (App. 1999)).
- Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
-
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
tests the sufficiency of the complaint, and judgment should be entered for the defendant if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.”
- Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Avitia v. Crisis Preparation
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶24 A Rule 12(c) motion “tests the sufficiency of the complaint, and judgment should be entered for the defendant if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.” ¶ 2 (App. 1999) (citations omitted).
- Roman Jr. v. Nationstar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Roman Jr. v. Nationstar
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
29, 2013) ( ¶ 2 (App. 1999).
- Chalmers v. East Valley Fiduciary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Chalmers v. East Valley Fiduciary
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Council for Progress, ¶ 5 (App. 2005) ( ¶ 2 (App. 1999)).
- Rt Automotive v. Westlake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Rt Automotive v. Westlake
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Servs., ¶ 5 (1998) (“Because Arizona has substantially adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we give great weight to the federal interpretations of the rules.” (citation omitted)); ¶ 2 (App. 1999) (recognizing that a motion for judgment on the pleadings tests the sufficiency of the complaint and, on review, we generally treat the allegations of the complaint as true).
- Canas v. Bay Entertainment Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Canas v. Bay Entertainment
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 2 (App. 1999); Cave Creek Unified Sch.
- Osorio v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Osorio v. Ross
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
BACKGROUND ¶2 “In reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, we treat the allegations of the complaint as true, but conclusions of law are not admitted.” ¶ 2 (App. 1999).
- Rodriguez v. Lytle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Rodriguez v. Lytle
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
DISCUSSION ¶5 A Rule 12(c) motion “tests the sufficiency of the complaint, and judgment should be entered for the defendant if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.” ¶ 2 (App. 1999).
- Lattin v. Shamrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Lattin v. Shamrock
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to [Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)] tests the sufficiency of the complaint, and judgment should be entered for the defendant if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.” ¶ 2 (App. 1999).
- Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Trabucco v. Cogan
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of unrelated and extremely contentious financial and legal disputes—including but not limited to post-divorce proceedings with his ex-wife, Pamela, and a 1 We recognize that civil malicious prosecution is often and perhaps more properly referred to as “wrongful institution of civil proceedings.” ¶ 20 n.5 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 5 n.1 (App. 1999)).
- Desert Financial v. Doss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Desert Financial v. Doss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Bank of Ny v. Backholm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
Bank of Ny v. Backholm
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 2 (App. 1999); Libra Group
- Muscat v. Creative 418 P.3d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Muscat v. Creative
418 P.3d 967
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
DISCUSSION ¶7 “A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to [Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)] tests the sufficiency of the complaint, and judgment should be entered for the defendant if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.” ¶ 2 (App. 1999).
- Rcbt v. Cit Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Rcbt v. Cit Bank
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
DISCUSSION ¶4 A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings “tests the sufficiency of the complaint, and judgment should be entered for the defendant if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.” ¶ 2 (App. 1999).
- American Legion v. Az Gaming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- American Legion v. Az Gaming Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Deutsche Bank v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Deutsche Bank v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Crown v. Ap Wireless Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Crown v. Ap Wireless
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
tests the sufficiency of the complaint, and judgment should be entered for the defendant if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.” ¶ 2
- Wallace v. Moffatt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Wallace v. Moffatt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Shaw v. CTVT Motors, Inc. 300 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
Shaw v. CTVT Motors, Inc.
300 P.3d 907
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 8 A defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted “if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.” ¶ 2
- Chalpin v. Snyder 207 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
Chalpin v. Snyder
207 P.3d 666
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
the aiding and abetting count because (1) aiding and abetting is not itself a tort and it has been recognized only sparingly in Arizona, (2) this court has limited the circumstances in which claims may be brought against opposing counsel to malicious prosecution and abuse of process, citing Linder, , , , and Giles, , , (3) limiting actions against *424 attorneys is of constitutional dimension, (4) under settled Arizona law, the aiding and abetting claims fail, (5) reliance on the Restatement is
- Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission
165 P.3d 194
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
DISCUSSION ¶ 6 A motion for judgment on the pleadings tests the sufficiency of the complaint, and a defendant is entitled to judgment “if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.” ¶ 2
- 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
361 ¶ 7, (judicial proceedings); , (legislative or executive proceedings); , (litigators)
- Mobile Community Council for Progress, Inc. v. Brock 119 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
-
Mobile Community Council for Progress, Inc. v. Brock
119 P.3d 463
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
tests the sufficiency of the complaint,” and a defendant is entitled to judgment “if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.” ¶ 2