Here, the trial court correctly applied this analysis in the context of the defendant's motion to dismiss under Tenn.R.Civ.P. 12.02(6). In Lilly v. Smith, 790 S.W.2d 539 (Tenn. App. 1990), for example, the plaintiff raised an equal protection challenge to the State's grade policy for admission into state nursing schools. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12.02(6).
Thus, when a complaint is tested by a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss, we must take all the well-pleaded, material factual allegations as true, and we must construe the complaint liberally in the plaintiff's favor. Lewis v. Allen, 698 S.W.2d 58, 59 (Tenn. 1985); Holloway v. Putnam County, 534 S.W.2d at 296, Lilly v. Smith, 790 S.W.2d 539, 540 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1990).Id. at 273-274.
Thus, when a complaint is tested by a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss, we must take all the well-pleaded, material factual allegations as true, and we must construe the complaint liberally in the plaintiff's favor. Lewis v. Allen, 698 S.W.2d 58, 59 (Tenn. 1985); Holloway v. Putnam County, 534 S.W.2d at 296; Lilly v. Smith, 790 S.W.2d 539, 540 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1990). Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270 (Tenn.App. 1992).
Thus, when a complaint is tested by a Tenn.R.Civ.P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss, we must take all the well-pleaded, material factual allegations as true, and we must construe the complaint liberally in the plaintiff's favor. Lewis v. Allen, 698 S.W.2d 58, 59 (Tenn. 1985); Holloway v. Putnam County, 534 S.W.2d at 296; Lillyv. Smith, 790 S.W.2d 539, 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). We are not required to consider factual inferences or legal conclusions as true. Elliott v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 225 Tenn. 658, 664, 475 S.W.2d 651, 653 (1971).