Appriva Shareholder Litigation Co. v. Ev3, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that challenge to plaintiff’s standing must be brought under Rule 12(b)(1), not Rule 12(b)(6)
• recognizing that for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court may consider matters outside of the complaint
• holding that a trial court that has converted a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment must give the parties at least ten days’ notice
• recognizing that when deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court need not accept a plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and is free to consider facts not alleged in the complaint
• finding that is was reversible error for the Court to fail to provide notice to parties before converting 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment
• noting that state and federal courts are divided as to whether the issue of standing is properly challenged under Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).