Cited by

To determine whether the complaint has stated a legally sufficient claim for relief, we “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

See Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., (“The reviewing court must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.”).

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., d 550, 552-53 (Minn. 2003).

See Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., (stating that, when reviewing a rule 12.02(e) claim, appellate courts consider “only the facts alleged in the complaint”).

The claim “focus[es] on a very narrow gap in tort law —to provide a remedy for the truthful but damaging dissemination of private facts, which is nonactionable under defamation rules.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

The two wards “have only 16% of [Minneapolis’] residents but account for 45% of complaints[.]” City data “suggests that the rental code violations in Wards 4 and 5 are resolved at a rate on par with other wards,” but the Residents’ allege that their “complaints go unanswered and are inaccurately marked as resolved despite no remedial action taken 1 Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., (articulating standard of review for an order dismissing a complaint under Minn. R. Civ.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 1 Because the record supports the district court’s finding that parties were governed by a valid contract, their equitable claim for unjust enrichment cannot succeed.

In doing so, we “must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

When determining whether dismissal was appropriate, we “must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., (citing Marquette Nat’l ).

In so doing, we “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

“The reviewing court must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences 5 in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., d 550, 553 (Minn. 2003).

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

See Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

(motion for judgment on the pleadings); Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. , (motion to dismiss).

We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss and consider the legal suffi ciency of the claims for relief based on “the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true” and construing “all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

On a motion to dismiss, we “consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, a ccepting those facts as true[,] and must C-2 construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. , .

D E C I S I O N “In reviewing cases involving dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12.02(e), the question before the appellate court is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Bodah v. L akeville Motor Express, Inc., (citation omitted).

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

This court should consider “only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., see also Zutz, d at 61 (stating same standard for appeal from judgment on pleadings).

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. , , 553 (Minn. 2003).

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

See Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., .

See Bodah v. Lakeville Motors Express, Inc. , 11 (stating that in reviewing a rule 12.02 motion to dismiss, the reviewing court accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as true).

See Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. , see also N. States Power Co. v. Minn. Metro.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

See Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

See Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. , , 553 (Minn. 2003).

(quoting Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. , ).

(quoting Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., ).

“The standard of review is therefore de novo.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. , 4 When doing so, in order to decide whether the petition sets forth a legally sufficient 2 HROs are also available to individuals who have experienced a single incident of physical or sexual assault, stalking, or nonconsensual communications of sexua

Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.

The reviewing court must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true, and must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. , (citation omitted).

D E C I S I O N Generally, in order to survive a rule 12 motion, a plaintiff need only set forth in the complaint “a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc.