recognizing that a rule’s unambiguous plain language is controlling, but that “its purpose and history, and its procedural context,” are also relevant to its interpretation
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that a rule’s unambiguous plain language is controlling, but that “its purpose and history, and its procedural context,” are also relevant to its interpretation
- stating that, when reviewing the rule- 12.02(e) dismissal of a complaint, “[appellate courts] accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party”
- stating that when the court reviews a motion to dismiss it must “accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party”
- noting with approval “the common-sense proposition that we are not bound by legal conclusions stated in a complaint when determining whether the complaint survives a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DIETZEN, J.
(concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Chief Justice Gildea.