Baker v. Dolphin Beach Rental Management

5 Citing cases

  1. Meno's Constr., L.L.C. v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz.

    246 Ariz. 521 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 5 times

    ¶16 Appellants do not dispute the ALJ’s finding that MC was a statutory employer but argue that this conclusion does not foreclose consideration of YB’s and GFC’s liability. Whether an employee may have multiple statutory employers under the Workers’ Compensation Act requires us to interpret and apply statutes, a task we undertake de novo . Buehler v. Retzer ex rel. Indus. Comm’n , 227 Ariz. 520, 521, ¶ 4, 260 P.3d 1085, 1086 (App. 2011) (citing Baker v. Dolphin Beach Rental & Mgmt., L.L.C. , 224 Ariz. 523, 524, ¶ 6, 233 P.3d 636, 637 (App. 2010) ). "Our goal in statutory interpretation is to effectuate the legislature’s intent." SolarCity Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue , 243 Ariz. 477, 480, ¶ 8, 413 P.3d 678, 681 (2018) (citing State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Pandola , 243 Ariz. 418, 419, ¶ 6, 408 P.3d 1254, 1255 (2018) ).

  2. Buehler v. Retzer Indu. Comm.

    227 Ariz. 520 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 8 times

    We also review de novo issues of statutory interpretation and application. Baker v. Dolphin Beach Rental & Mgmt., LLC, 224 Ariz. 523, 524, ¶ 6, 233 P.3d 636, 637 (App. 2010).          B.

  3. Bither v. Country Mut. Ins. Co.

    226 Ariz. 198 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 13 times
    Describing legislative history; citing authorities

    Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. Baker v. Dolphin Beach Rental Mgmt., LLC, 224 Ariz. 523, 524, ¶ 6, 233 P.3d 636, 637 (App. 2010). ¶ 6 Several critical facts are uncontested.

  4. Ploof v. State

    1 CA-CV 22-0486 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    But a court resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must resolve conflicting inferences from the complaint's allegations in favor of the non-moving party. Baker v. Dolphin Beach Rental &Mgmt., LLC, 224 Ariz. 523, 524 n.1 (App. 2010) ("In reviewing motions to dismiss pursuant to [Rule 12(b)(6)], we accept well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as true and resolve any conflicting inferences in favor of the non-moving party.").

  5. Marks v. Robert

    1 CA-CV 11-0527 (Ariz. Ct. App. May. 10, 2012)

    ¶4 In reviewing the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6), we "accept [the] well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as true and resolve any conflicting inferences in favor of the non-moving party." Baker v. Dolphin Beach Rental & Mgmt., LLC, 224 Ariz. 523, 524 n.1, ¶ 1, 223 P.3d 636, 637 n.1 (App. 2010) (citation omitted). I. Constable Weaver and Judges Fletcher and MacBeth