Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance, 189 P.3d 344.
- Medrano v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Medrano v. Maricopa
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., ¶ 7, (holding court must “assume the truth of the well- pled factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom”).
- In Re $70,070 in U.S. Currency 335 P.3d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-
In Re $70,070 in U.S. Currency
335 P.3d 545
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Co., ¶¶ 6-7, Builders Fin.
- Lemad v. Miravista Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Lemad v. Miravista
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., ¶ 6, (citation omitted).
- ML Servicing Co. v. Coles 334 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- ML Servicing Co. v. Coles 334 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Midtown v. Farmers 334 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Midtown v. Farmers
334 P.3d 1252
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., ¶ 7, (noting that conclusory statements insufficiently state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
- Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Beaver v. American Family Mutual Insurance 324 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Beaver v. American Family Mutual Insurance
324 P.3d 870
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., P.3d 344 (2008); Duran v. Hartford Ins.
- Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Southwest Non-Profit Housing Corporation v. Nowak, Kniffen, Martell 322 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- Southwest Non-Profit Housing Corporation v. Nowak, Kniffen, Martell 322 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- Jimenez v. state/ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Jimenez v. state/ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Callies v. United Heritage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
Stout v. Taylor
311 P.3d 1088
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Co., ¶ 10 , (explaining that only the supreme court may change the meaning of rales); , (confirming that former statewide rale in effect at the time requiring a court reporter at all preliminary hearings took priority over local
- Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
- Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
- TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms 307 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms
307 P.3d 56
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Co., ¶ 7 , the allegations could provide grounds for TP Racing’s dissolution only.
- Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands 296 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
-
Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands
296 P.3d 984
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Co., P.3d 344 (2008) (Cullen II).
- Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-
Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp.
290 P.3d 446
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., ¶ 7 , (citations omitted).
- Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC 294 P.3d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- Young v. Rose 286 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-
Young v. Rose
286 P.3d 518
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., ¶ 7 , (citations omitted).
- Coleman v. City of Mesa 284 P.3d 863 Ariz. 2012
- Coleman v. City of Mesa 284 P.3d 863 Ariz. 2012
- John Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank Ariz. 2012
-
John Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank
Ariz. 2012
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
- Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. 277 P.3d 781 Ariz. 2012
-
Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A.
277 P.3d 781
Ariz. 2012
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
- ELM RETIREMENT CENTER, LP v. Callaway 246 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-
ELM RETIREMENT CENTER, LP v. Callaway
246 P.3d 938
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co., ¶ 7 , ("complaint that states only legal conclusions, without any supporting factual allegations, does not satisfy Arizona's notice pleading standard"); ¶ 14 , (supplemental opinion).
- Grand v. Nacchio 236 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2010
- Grand v. Nacchio 236 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2010
- Lips v. SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE CORP. 229 P.3d 1008 Ariz. 2010
-
Lips v. SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE CORP.
229 P.3d 1008
Ariz. 2010
Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419-20 ¶¶ 7, 14, -47 (2008) (“[C]ourts are limited to considering the well-pled facts and .