Legal Opinion
Dunlap v. City of Phoenix
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided December 27, 1990No. 1 CA-CV 89-383PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION EUBANK, Judge.
Max Anderson Dunlap (Dunlap) appeals from the trial court’s order granting the defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss his complaint on the grounds that his action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. A.R.S. § 12-542(1) (Supp.1989). Defendants-appellees are the City of Phoenix and various individual members of its police department (defendants). We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, we accept as true the well-pleaded facts as alleged in the complaint. See Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Coop., 161…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/GillelandArizona Supreme Court · 1984
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust FundArizona Supreme Court · 2002
- Hirsch v. General Motors Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
- Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
- Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
- Bogard v. CANNON & WENDT ELEC. CO., INC.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.