Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., 428 P.2d 990.

93 citing documents.

Vista De Oeste v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Vista De Oeste v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Cullen, 218 Ariz. at 419 ¶ 7; ¶ 4 (App. 2005) (“[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.”) ().
Carrillo v. Uribe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Carrillo v. Uribe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Cutter v. Crowninshield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cutter v. Crowninshield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
But “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 (App. 2005) (citing Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., Dockery v. Cent.
Martin v. Royal Sign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Martin v. Royal Sign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Granger, (affirming judgment following jury trial on negligent design claim arising out of flooding damage); (affirming directed verdict on personal injury claim); Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., (affirming in part and reversing in part motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings in personal injury design defect case).
Lim v. Gillies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lim v. Gillies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 33-1551; Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc., - 43, -33 (1982); Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., -17, -95 (1967).3 A possessor of land is: (a) a person who is in occupation of the land with intent to control it or (b) a person who has been in occupation of land with intent to control it, if no other person has subsequently occupied it with intent t
Tri City v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tri City v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Wickham v. Hopkins 250 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Wickham v. Hopkins 250 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See generally Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc., -43 , -33 (1982); Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., -17 , -95 (1967).
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(court will accept as true only well-pleaded facts).
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
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , In re One Single Family Residence and Real Property Located at 15453 N. Second Ave.
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 930 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 930 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
1 Given plaintiffs legal status, Woodmar only owed a duty to “refrain from knowingly letting him run upon a hidden peril or wantonly or wilfully causing him harm.” Parish, 124 Ariz. at 230 , 603 P.2d at 122 , citing Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Matter of Residence at 15453 No. 2nd Ave. 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State ex rel. Woods v. Sigman 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Matter of Residence at 15453 No. 2nd Ave. 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint are treated as true, Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , and the motion should only be granted if the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment.
State ex rel. Woods v. Sigman 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint are treated as true, Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , and the motion should only be granted if the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment.
Woodty v. Weston's Lamplighter Motels 830 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Woodty v. Weston's Lamplighter Motels 830 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Our supreme court has left the use of these status distinctions undisturbed since its decision in Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Principal Casualty Insurance v. Progressive Casualty Insurance 838 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Principal Casualty Insurance v. Progressive Casualty Insurance 838 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
12(c); Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In granting summary judgment in favor of Paddock on the negligence allegations, the trial court recognized a
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
ANDREWS, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF KIME v. Casagrande 804 P.2d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
ANDREWS, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF KIME v. Casagrande 804 P.2d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , (deceptive illusion created by glass door as obvious to owner as to defendant builder); Bailey v. Gammell, 34 Wash.App.
Udy v. Calvary Corp. 780 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Udy v. Calvary Corp. 780 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
McLEOD BY AND THROUGH SMITH v. Newcomer 785 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
McLEOD BY AND THROUGH SMITH v. Newcomer 785 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , (citation omitted).
Dolezal v. Carbrey 778 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Dolezal v. Carbrey 778 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , Robles v. Severyn, 19 Ariz.App.
Moore v. Tucson Electric Power Co. 761 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Moore v. Tucson Electric Power Co. 761 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
61 , because we were bound by our supreme court’s decision in Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. 751 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. 751 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
and Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc., , though there had previously been dicta to that effect.
Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland 677 P.2d 1298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland 677 P.2d 1298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
See Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Donnelly Construction Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland 677 P.2d 1298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Donnelly Construction Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland 677 P.2d 1298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
See Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.
Mulligan v. Grace 666 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mulligan v. Grace 666 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by