NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL, a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court properly dismissed claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because it was “vague, conclusory, and general and does not set forth any material facts in support of the allegations”
• stating that in the Rule 12(b)(6) context, “[w]e need not reach issues for which there is no foun- dation in the complaint”
• “The purpose of a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency 16 of the complaint.”
• “The purpose of a motion to dismiss under 3 rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint.”
• “We need not reach issues for 9 which there is no foundation in the complaint.”
• “Because the complaint is vague, conclusory, and general and does not set forth any material facts in support of the allegations, these claims were properly dismissed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).