Legal Opinion

Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 2008No. CV-07-0402-PRPublishedCited by 105 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

McGREGOR, Chief Justice.

¶ 1 Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) (Rule 8) requires that all pleadings that set forth a claim for relief “shall contain ... [a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” We granted review to dispel any confusion as to whether Arizona has abandoned the notice pleading standard under Rule 8 in favor of the recently articulated standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). We hold that Rule 8, as previously interpreted by this Court, governs the sufficiency…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  2. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Dressler v. MorrisonArizona Supreme Court · 2006
  4. MacKey v. SpanglerArizona Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 2001

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by105 opinions

  1. Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Coleman v. City of MesaArizona Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical CorporationArizona Supreme Court · 2016
  5. Steinberger v. McVeyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2014

100 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API