Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Coleman v. City of Mesa, 284 P.3d 863.
- Rogut v. Surprise 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
- Kp Ventures v. Mohave 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
plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” (quoting Fid.
- Kp Ventures v. Mohave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
- In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
- Swanson v. Ball Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Danko v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Danko v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Swanson v. Ball
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 9 (2012) (noting that a "complaint's exhibits, or public records regarding matters referenced in a complaint, are not 'outside the pleading,' and courts may consider such documents without converting a Rule [29(a)](6) motion into a summary judgment motion") ¶8 The court found that Husband only all
- Giersz v. Walmart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Giersz v. Walmart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Walters v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Walters v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Starr Pass Resort Developments, LLC v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
-
Starr Pass Resort Developments, LLC v. Pima County
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Two categories of documents are not “outside the pleadings.” These are “a complaint’s exhibits” and “public records regarding matters referenced in a complaint.” see also Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc., (noting case law not requiring conversion for documents “central to the complaint” but not attached to it, though also noting that Coleman arguably disapproves of this exception).
- Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
- Satamian v. Great Divide Ariz. 2024
- McCormick v. the Multistate Lottery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- McCormick v. the Multistate Lottery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Grimes v. Mead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Grimes v. Mead Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Wharton v. Jr Property Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Wharton v. Jr Property Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Lorence v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Lorence v. Mayo Clinic
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 On appeal from a motion to dismiss, we “must assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts, but mere conclusory statements are insufficient.” ¶ 9 (2012).
- Potter v. Arizona House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Potter v. Arizona House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Jose R. Aroca and Kirstin Aroca v. Tang Investment Company, LLC ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
-
Jose R. Aroca and Kirstin Aroca v. Tang Investment Company, LLC ...
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
P., we “assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations.” ¶¶ 7-9 (2012).
- Hammer v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Hammer v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Date Street Capital, LLC v. Clearcover Insurance Company ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
- Robertson v. Bacolas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Robertson v. Bacolas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Date Street Capital, LLC v. Clearcover Insurance Company ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
- Hoenack v. Gannett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Hoenack v. Gannett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Torrefranca v. Shinn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Torrefranca v. Shinn
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
P. 12(b)(6); ¶ 7 (2012).
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Doe v. Roman Catholic
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We “assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts,” ¶ 9 (2012), but will 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,” Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz.
- Potter v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Potter v. Meza
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
To decide whether “a complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted, courts must assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts, but mere conclusory statements are insufficient.” ¶ 9 (2012).
- Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Danko v. McCormick
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
P. 12(b)(6); ¶ 9 (2012) (Courts adjudicate Rule 12(b)(6) motions by looking only to the pleadings.).
- Vista De Oeste v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Vista De Oeste v. Lopez
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 7 (2012); Fidelity Sec.
- Sanchez v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023