Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman, 922 P.2d 308.

54 citing documents.

Colorado City v. Centennial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Colorado City v. Centennial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Under that statute, a municipality may oust a preexisting “public utility service”—which includes garbage collection, Mohave Disposal, -49 (1996)—via acquisition and afterward maintain a 6 COLORADO CITY v. CENTENNIAL Decision of the Court monopoly to the extent of the historical service area.
Doe v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Doe v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶10 Dismissal of a complaint is appropriate only if plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” Mohave Disposal
Hill v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hill v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Montelongo-Morales v. Driscoll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Montelongo-Morales v. Driscoll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Camboni v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Camboni v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Dismissal is appropriate if the plaintiff “would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” Mohave Disposal
Broadband v. Satcom 418 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Broadband v. Satcom 418 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ctr., ¶ 5 (App. 2010) (quoting Mohave Disposal, ).
Cutter v. Crowninshield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cutter v. Crowninshield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mohave Disposal, (citing Menendez v. Paddock Pool Constr.
Scorzo v. Az med/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Scorzo v. Az med/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ctr., ¶ 5, (quoting Mohave Disposal, ); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Ball v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ball v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ctr., ¶ 5, (quoting Mohave Disposal, ).
Mattison v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mattison v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Callaway, ¶ 5 (App. 2010) (quoting Mohave Disposal, ).
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Valenzuela v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Mohave Disposal, (citing Menendez v. Paddock Pool Constr.
US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ctr., ¶ 5, (quoting Mohave Disposal, ).
Rodriguez v. Fox News Network, L.L.C. 356 P.3d 322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
D'Ambrosio v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
D'Ambrosio v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
Although we “uphold dismissal only if the plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim,” Mohave Disposal, we may affirm if the dismissal is correct for any reason, n.3, n.3 (App. 2007).
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
Cardinal & Stachel, PC v. Curtiss 238 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Cardinal & Stachel, PC v. Curtiss 238 P.3d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
...” Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of *383 Kingman
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF PARISHIONERS v. Reiss 224 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
T.P. Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Arizona Department of Racing 222 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
T.P. Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Arizona Department of Racing 222 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In our review of the “trial court’s decision granting a motion to dismiss, we assume the truth of the allegations set forth in the complaint and uphold dismissal only if the plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” Mohave Disposal, , (citing Menendez v. Paddock Pool Constr.
STATE EX REL. AZ. REG. OF CONT. v. Johnston 214 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
STATE EX REL. AZ. REG. OF CONT. v. Johnston 214 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance 189 P.3d 344 Ariz. 2008
Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance 189 P.3d 344 Ariz. 2008
The court identified the correct notice pleading standard, as discussed above, citing our recent decisions in Dressler, 212 Ariz. at 281 ¶ 11, 130 P.3d at 980, Doe, 200 Ariz. at 175 ¶ 2, 24 P.3d at 1270, and Mohave Disposal
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶2 When reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss, “we assume the truth of the allegations set forth in the complaint and uphold dismissal only if the plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” Mohave Disposal
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
In Mohave Disposal, our supreme court stated it would “uphold dismissal [for failure to state a claim] only if the plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.” (Emphasis added); 130 P.3
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“We will ‘uphold dismissal only if the plaintiff[] would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.’” Id., quoting Mohave Disposal, (modification in Dressler).
COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
We review a trial court’s order dismissing a claim for an abuse of discretion, upholding the order “‘only if the plaintiff[] would not be entitled to relief under any facts susceptible of proof in the statement of the claim.’” quoting Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman, 186 Ariz. 343, 346