Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Coleman v. City of Mesa, 284 P.3d 863.
- Sanchez v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Tinoco v. Tinoco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Tinoco v. Tinoco
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
–56, ¶¶ 7–9 (2012) (When considering an Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court assumes the truth of all well-pled factual allegations and only grants it if the non-moving party “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.”) (citation om
- Brosnahan v. Caliber Home Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Brosnahan v. Caliber Home Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Conway v. Arizona Independent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Conway v. Arizona Independent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Cavness v. Cavness-Engstrand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Cavness v. Cavness-Engstrand
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 9 (2012); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
- Boyd v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Gibbs v. Palm Valley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Boyd v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 7 (2012).1 ¶7 This case is distinct from Boyd’s claim for damages for sexual assault against Loe, the State and the ADJC and this decision has no effect on his appeal pending in that case.
- Gibbs v. Palm Valley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Silverman v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Silverman v. Ahcccs
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
P. 12(b)(6); –56, ¶¶ 7–8 (2012).
- Az Petition Partners LLC v. Hon. thompson/state 530 P.3d 1144 Ariz. 2023
-
Az Petition Partners LLC v. Hon. thompson/state
530 P.3d 1144
Ariz. 2023
at 286 ¶¶ 65–66; ¶ 31 (2012) (“Determining that tattooing is protected speech also implies that the business of tattooing is constitutionally protected.”).
- Abdulhussain v. Mv Public Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Abdulhussain v. Mv Public
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
DISCUSSION ¶8 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is only appropriate if, as a matter of law, the plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” ¶ 8 (2012) (citation omitted).
- Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Wallschlaeger v. the Hogle Firm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Hill v. El Mirage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Wallschlaeger v. the Hogle Firm
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
DISCUSSION ¶10 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is only appropriate if, as a matter of law, the plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible to proof.” ¶ 8 (2012).
-
Hill v. El Mirage
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, ¶ 7 (2012), unless the motion is granted because the nonmoving party failed to respond, in which case we review the superior court's decision for an abuse of discretion, Ariz. R. Civ.
- harris/iheartmedia v. Hon. Randall warner/mccarthy Ariz. 2023
- harris/iheartmedia v. Hon. Randall warner/mccarthy Ariz. 2023
- Vaughn-Leavitt v. U.S. Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Vaughn-Leavitt v. U.S. Bank
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶15 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is only appropriate if, as a matter of law, the plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” ¶ 8 (2012) (citation omitted).
- Shooter v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Shooter v. State
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We assume the truth of all “well-pleaded allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts.” ¶ 9 (2012).
- Hall v. Hardy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Hall v. Hardy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- KHAWLA WISE HASHIM WISESALADIN WISE v. ASPEY, WATKINS & DIESEL ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
- KHAWLA WISE HASHIM WISESALADIN WISE v. ASPEY, WATKINS & DIESEL ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
- Pettersen v. Plexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Pettersen v. Plexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Federal Insurance v. Skyquest Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Federal Insurance v. Skyquest
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 7 (2012) (motion to dismiss); ¶ 10 (App. 2013) (statute of limitations).
- Ute Mountain v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Ute Mountain v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Puente v. Az State Legislature Ariz. 2022
- Puente v. Az State Legislature Ariz. 2022
- Almada Negrete v. Simonson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Almada Negrete v. Simonson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Co., ¶ 7 (2008), and will affirm only if, as a matter of law, the petitioner “would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts,” ¶ 8 (2012) (quotation and citation omitted).
- Coe v. Maricopa Meadows Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Coe v. Maricopa Meadows Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- John R. France v. Arizona Counties Insurance Pool Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022