Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Coleman v. City of Mesa, 284 P.3d 863.
-
Rodriguez v. Fox News Network, L.L.C.
356 P.3d 322
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶5 We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, ¶ 7 (2012), and will affirm only if a plaintiff "would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim," Mohave Disposal
- Bozrah v. aroc/peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Bozrah v. aroc/peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Honig v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Honig v. Ahcccs
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Coleman 3 -56, ¶¶ 7, 9 (2012).
- Yang v. Az Chinese News Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Yang v. Az Chinese News
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” ¶ 8, (citation omitted).
- MacH v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
MacH v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
DISCUSSION ¶6 “Dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo.” ¶ 7
- Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Merrick v. D. Hurley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- D'Ambrosio v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- BNSF Railway Co. v. Seats Inc. 349 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- BNSF Railway Co. v. Seats Inc. 349 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- D'Ambrosio v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Az Eufora v. Constantine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Az Eufora v. Constantine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Casady v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Casady v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Hendershott v. Babeu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Hendershott v. Babeu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Demaree v. Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Glava v. Jpmorgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Thieme v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Glava v. Jpmorgan
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
DISCUSSION ¶8 We review a decision granting a motion to dismiss de novo.3 ¶ 7
- Thieme v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Collins v. Valley Metro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Collins v. Valley Metro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Chandler v. Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Chandler v. Rancho
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 7, 4 In reviewing Chandler’s amended complaint to determine if it states a claim for relief that can be granted, we will assume the truth of all well-pled factual allegations and all reasonable inferences that can be determined from those facts.
- Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Hope v. Renaud Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Chapa v. Barker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Chapa v. Barker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Florence v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Kamela v. One West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Florence v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Kamela v. One West
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Reviewing the dismissal of the Kamelas’ claims de novo, -56, ¶ 7, -67 (2012), we hold the superior court properly dismissed their claims under A.R.S.
- Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public 337 P.3d 545 Ariz. 2014
- Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public 337 P.3d 545 Ariz. 2014
- Medley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Medrano v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- McNamara v. Citizens Protecting Tax Payers 337 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Medley v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-56, ¶¶ 7-8, -67 (2012).
- McNamara v. Citizens Protecting Tax Payers 337 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Medrano v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Snyder v. banner/goel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Snyder v. banner/goel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Schugg v. Az Brd of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014