Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance, 189 P.3d 344.
-
Brandler v. Brandler
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
e pleader is entitled to relief[.]” “Arizona follows a notice pleading standard, the purpose of which is to ‘give the opponent fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim and indicate generally the type 5 BRANDLER v. BRANDLER Decision of the Court of litigation involved.’” ¶ 6 (2008) (citation omitted).
- KITAGUCHI v. VELASCO Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- ACCURSIO v. TREE HOUSE Ariz. 2026
- LYNCH v. HOMESMART Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
- Chopko v. Newrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- Kuerschner v. Kuerschner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- Nunez v. Valente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL v. HOBBS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
STRONG COMMUNITIES v. YAVAPAI/ARIZONA
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Co., ¶ 7 (2008); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
- STEPHAN v. BERTZ Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
STEPHAN v. BERTZ
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Co., ¶ 6 (2008) (citation omitted).
- Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- Dyrek v. Dyrek Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- CHOPKO v. FIDELITY NATIONAL Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
CHOPKO v. FIDELITY NATIONAL
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Co., ¶ 6 (2008) (citation modified).
- FULLER v. SCOTTSDALE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- FULLER v. SCOTTSDALE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- Mahanti v. Fraser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Mahanti v. Fraser Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Derek D. Fraser v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
- Derek D. Fraser v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
- Champagne v. Bozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Champagne v. Bozer
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins., Co., ¶ 7 (2008).“[M]ere conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Id.
- American Medical v. Central Az Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- American Medical v. Central Az Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Johnson v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Johnson v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Santa Cruz County, Alma Schultz v. Audit USA, John Brakey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
- Santa Cruz County, Alma Schultz v. Audit USA, John Brakey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
- Maricopa v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Maricopa v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Pioneer Title v. Larue Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Pioneer Title v. Larue
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶10 In assessing the sufficiency of a complaint, Arizona uses a notice pleading standard, “the purpose of which is to ‘give the opponent fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim and indicate generally the type of litigation involved.’” ¶ 6 (2008).
- Hogen v. Hogen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Hogen v. Hogen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Danam v. Gcu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Danam v. Gcu
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., ¶ 6 (2008) (citing Ariz. R. Civ.
- Brown v. Olde Fashioned Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Pittman v. Gcu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Brown v. Olde Fashioned
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., ¶ 7 (2008) (“Arizona courts look only to the pleading itself” when “adjudicating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”); cf. Date Street Capital, LLC v. Clearcover Ins.
-
Pittman v. Gcu
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., ¶ 6 (2008) (“Arizona follows a notice pleading standard, the purpose of which is to ‘give the opponent fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim and indicate generally the type of litigation involved.’” (citation omitted)).
- Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. County of Cochise Cochise County Jail District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
- Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. County of Cochise Cochise County Jail District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
- Danko v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Danko v. Jackson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., ¶ 7 (2008) (cleaned up).