Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Coleman v. City of Mesa, 284 P.3d 863.

647 citing documents.

Delprete v. Ditech Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Pearce v. Yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We review de novo the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, ¶ 7 (2012), and find that the trial court properly disposed of Pearce’s nonviable complaint.
Delprete v. Ditech Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ANALYSIS ¶10 We review de novo a superior court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.4 ¶ 9 (2012).
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kresock v. Depaoli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Workman v. Verde Wellness Ctr., Inc., ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (finding the trial court “necessarily considered matters outside the pleadings” when exhibits were attached to the motion and arguments at a hearing were based on the exhibits) ( ¶ 9 (2012)); Canyon del Rio Inv’rs, ¶ 15 (App. 2011) (converting motion because exhibits were not stricken) ( ¶ 6 (App. 2008); ¶ 7 (App. 2008)).
Fappani v. Bratton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Fappani v. Bratton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Conklin v. Medtronic 418 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Conklin v. Medtronic 418 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Woodward v. Az Corp. Comm. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Woodward v. Az Corp. Comm. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bishara v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bishara v. US Bank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Whiles v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Whiles v. Henderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 9 (2012) (“If ‘matters outside the pleading’ are considered, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment.”).
Yahweh v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Yahweh v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 6 , (appellate court reviews de novo interpretation of a statute) (citation omitted); ¶ 7 , (dismissal of complaint reviewed de novo) (citations omitted).
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Morari 399 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Morari 399 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Gordon v. Estate of Brooks 397 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gordon v. Estate of Brooks 397 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
This rule applied even when the personal 5-56, ¶¶ 7-8, -67 (2012) (appellate court reviews a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo and will affirm only if plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof; appellate court reviews issues of law de novo) (citations and quotations omitted).
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 393 P.3d 919 Ariz. 2017
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 393 P.3d 919 Ariz. 2017
On review, therefore, we “assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations” in the City’s pleading and “indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts.” ¶ 9, see also Watts v. Medicis Pharm.
Ornstein v. Bank of America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ornstein v. Bank of America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gersten v. Sun Pain Management, P.L.L.C. 395 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gersten v. Sun Pain Management, P.L.L.C. 395 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Edwards v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Edwards v. Lakewood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Edwards v. Lakewood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Edwards v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Acri v. State 394 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Acri v. State 394 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
DISCUSSION 115 Dismissal under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is proper “only if ‘as a matter of law [ ] plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.’ ” ¶ 8 , (citation omitted and alteration in original).
Gaydos v. Ocwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gaydos v. Ocwen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boswell v. Fintelmann 392 P.3d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boswell v. Fintelmann 392 P.3d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 12-2603, Romero v. Hasan, __ Ariz. __, __, ¶ 6, (-56, ¶ 7, -67 (2012)), because a claimant’s failure to properly certify the non-frivolous nature of the complaint pursuant to A.R.S.
Caravetta v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Caravetta v. Duick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Romero, 338 P.3d at 23, ¶ 6 (-56, ¶ 7 (2012)).
Sussex v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sussex v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) de novo and “assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts.” ¶ 9 (2012).
Cutter v. Crowninshield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cutter v. Crowninshield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 17 (App. 2014) (-56, ¶¶ 7-8 (2012)).
Hayward v. Arizona Central Credit Union 387 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Hayward v. Arizona Central Credit Union 387 P.3d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Emerson v. O'connor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lowry v. Jp Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Romero v. Hasan 388 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by