Cited by

Int’l, Inc., ¶ 7 (2002) (finding a court will grant a motion to dismiss if “the plaintiff should be denied relief as a matter of law given the facts alleged.”).

Int'l, Inc., ¶ 15, ( ); see also Murcott v. Best W. Int'l, Inc., ¶ 41, ( P.2d 250 (1986) and Wagenseller).

Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc., ¶ 4 (App. 2003); see also Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, Inc., ¶ 2 (2002) (stating that 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint).

Wendy provided the test results to DCS, but the agency rejected them “for reasons not completely 1 Our recitation of facts is based on the allegations of the complaint, see Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, Inc., ¶ 2 (2002), as well as this Court’s decision in Wendy L. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

See Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, Inc., ¶ 2 (2002) (when reviewing dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), we assume truth of well-pleaded facts).

See Logan v. Forever Living Products Int'l, Inc., n. 3, ¶ 7, n. 3 (2002) (citations omitted).

Co., ¶ 7, we will affirm a dismissal when “the plaintiff should be denied relief as a matter of law - 7 - given the facts alleged,” Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, Inc., ¶ 7

Co., , 419 ¶ 7, we will affirm a dismissal when “the plaintiff should be denied relief as a matter of law given the facts alleged,” Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, Inc., , 193 ¶ 7

Int'l, ¶ 8 , (citations omitted).

■ [12] ¶ 19 In determining what standard to apply to this dispute of educational placement, we look to the statutory scheme to guide us. Logan v. Forever Living Prods., Int’l, ¶ 8 , , 762 *589 (2002) (“We begin our analysis with the statute ...

Int’l, Inc., , 194 n. 4, ¶ 10, , 763 n. 4 (2002) (“[T]he Attorney General’s Opinion does not constitute precedent regarding statutory construction.

Int’l, Inc., , (action for wrongful termination under AEPA brought against corporation and its agents held viable where agents attempted to extort property from plaintiffs).

Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 “When a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted, review on appeal necessarily assumes the truth of facts alleged in the complaint.” Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, Inc.

Int’l, Inc., , 194 n. 4, ¶ 10, , 763 n. 4 (2002) ( , ).

Int’l, Inc., ¶ 10 , (when "plain language” analysis is insufficient to determine legislative intent we look to statute's policy or evil it was designed to address).

Int'l, Inc., ¶ 10 , (“In discerning legislative intent, we look to the statute’s policy, the evil it was designed to address, its words, context, subject matter, and effects and consequences.”).

1, and our courts have long held that “failure to make reference to a statute [in a complaint] is not fatal to a claim.” see also Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, P.3d 760 (2002) (if employee’s claim cognizable under AEPA, it should not be dismissed); (“[P]ublic statutes need not be pleaded or offered into evidence since courts will take judicial notice thereof.”).

1, and our courts have long held that “failure to make reference to a statute [in a complaint] is not fatal to a claim.” , see also Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, , (if employee’s claim cognizable under AEPA, it should not be dismissed); , (“[P]ublic statutes need not be pleaded or offered into evidence since courts will take judicial notice thereof.”).

Int'l., Inc., n. 6, ¶ 16 , n. 6 (2002).