actionable claim in Indiana

2025Ind., 845 N.E.2d 130, 135 (Ind. 2006)). [50] Wagner has stated operative facts sufficient to set forth an actionable claim against Perry and BIFS under the Securities Act.

2020A “plaintiff need not set out in precise detail the facts upon which the claim is based” but “must still plead the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim.” Trail, 845 N.E.2d at 135 .

2020In Doe v. Methodist Hosp., our supreme court declined to recognize the sub-tort of public disclosure of private facts as an actionable claim. 690 N.E.2d 681, 693 (Ind. 1997).

2019In Doe v. Methodist Hospital, the Indiana Supreme Court declined to adopt [the tort of private disclosure of public facts (“Disclosure”)], which is a sub-tort of invasion of privacy, as an actionable claim. 690 N.E.2d 681, 693 (Ind. 1997).

2013Trail, 845 N.E.2d at 135 (citing Miller v. Mem’l Hosp. of South Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329, 1332 (Ind. 1997)).

2008Dismissals under T.R. 12(B)(6) are “rarely appropriate.” Id. (citing State Civil Rights Comm’n v. County Line Park, Inc., 738 N.E.2d 1044, 1049 (Ind.2000)). 1 Though Indiana’s notice pleading rules do not require the complaint to state all elements of a cause of action, Miller v. Mem’l Hosp. of S. Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329, 1332 (Ind.1997) (citing State v. Rankin, 260 Ind. 228 , 294 N.E.2d 604, 606 (1973)), the plaintiff must still plead the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim.

2019Id.

2017Family Voices, Inc., 898 N.E.2d 293, 296 (Ind. 2008) (noting that although Indiana’s notice-pleading rules do not require the complaint to state all elements of a cause of action, the plaintiff must still plead the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim).

2018Bd. of Comm’rs of Union Cnty. v. McGuinness, 80 N.E.3d 164, 167 (Ind. 2017) (citing Trail v. Boys & Girls Club of Nw.

2018Bd. of Comm'rs of Union Cnty. v. McGuinness , 80 N.E.3d 164 , 167 (Ind. 2017) (citing Trail v. Boys & Girls Clubs of Nw.

2020The court revisited the issue in Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville, explaining that its “discussion of [the history of the invasion of privacy tort] and the Second Restatement served as a prelude to [its] decision not to recognize a branch of the tort involving the public disclosure of private facts.” 755 N.E.2d 589, 593 (Ind. 2001).

2019See City of New Haven v. Reichhart, 748 N.E.2d 374, 378 (Ind. 2001).3 Turning to the claim of obstruction of justice—a claim predicated on the alleged violation of a particular criminal statute—that statute “does not provide for a civil remedy.” Loomis v. Ameritech Corp., 764 N.E.2d 658 , 668 n.9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.4 Finally, as to the alleged violations of the Indiana Constitution, there is no express or implied right of action for monetary damages under the Indiana Constitution—and we 2 Certain defendants were not part of the motion for summary judgment, having pursued 12(B)

2019See City of New Haven v. Reichhart, 748 N.E.2d 374, 378 (Ind. 2001).3 Turning to the claim of obstruction of justice—a claim predicated on the alleged violation of a particular criminal statute—that statute “does not provide for a civil remedy.” Loomis v. Ameritech Corp., 764 N.E.2d 658 , 668 n.9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.4 Finally, as to the alleged violations of the Indiana Constitution, there is no express or implied right of action for monetary damages under the Indiana Constitution—and we 2 Certain defendants were not part of the motion for summary judgment, having pursued 12(B)

2018We note that “a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as a trained attorney and is afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of being self-represented.” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014).

2017Specifically, it argues that Torres was not uninsured, and that as a result, Smith did not have an actionable claim against Affirmative from which he could recover damages. [7] A motion to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint: that is, whether the allegations in the complaint establish any set of circumstances under which a plaintiff would be entitled to relief.” Lockhart v. State, 38 N.E.3d 215, 217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotations omitted).

2017A motion to dismiss under Trial'Rule 12(B)(6) “tests .the legal sufficiency -of a complaint: that is, whether the allegations in the cohiplaint establish any set of circumstances under which a'plaintiff would be entitled to relief.” Lockhart v. State, 38 N.E.3d 215, 217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotations omitted).

2016In subsequent cases, this Court has reaffirmed that an actionable claim of slander of title requires proof that “the defendant made false, malicious statements regarding the plaintiffs ownership of the land in question.” Walsh & Kelly, Inc. v. Int'l Contractors, Inc., 943 N.E.2d 394, 398 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (citing Davis v. Sponhauer, 574 N.E.2d 292, 300 (Ind.App.1991)) (emphasis added), trans. denied. [31] Here, BSA has hot made an allegation that Johnson impugned BSA’s claim of title to the real estate.

2016In subsequent cases, this Court has reaffirmed that an actionable claim of slander of title requires proof that “the defendant made false, malicious statements regarding the plaintiffs ownership of the land in question.” Walsh & Kelly, Inc. v. Int'l Contractors, Inc., 943 N.E.2d 394, 398 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (citing Davis v. Sponhauer, 574 N.E.2d 292, 300 (Ind.App.1991)) (emphasis added), trans. denied. [31] Here, BSA has hot made an allegation that Johnson impugned BSA’s claim of title to the real estate.

2015See also Comfax Corp. v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 587 N.E.2d 118, 123-24 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (declining to recognize a new claim in Indiana for tortious breach of contract). [11] With respect to Jaffri’s claim to damages for emotional distress, it is well-settled that emotional distress damages are not recoverable for breach of contract.

2015However, a court need not accept as true “allegations that are contradicted by other allegations or exhibits attached to or incorporated in the pleading.” Morgan Asset Holding Corp. v. CoBank, ACB, 736 N.E.2d 1268, 1271 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (citations omitted).- Indiana Trial Rule 8(A), this state’s notice pleading provision, requires only “a short'and plain ■ statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although the plaintiff need not set out in precise detail the facts upon which the claim is based, she must still plead the ■ operative facts necessary to set forth an

2015Negligent failure to do so is a tort, as well as a breach of contract.” INS Investigations Bureau, Inc. v. Lee, 784 N.E.2d 566, 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted); Alvarado v. Nagy, 819 N.E.2d 520, 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (concluding that Alvarado’s complaint stated a claim for legal malpractice where he alleged that Nagy agreed to represent him to seek a sentence modification, Alvarado paid Nagy’s fee but was dissatisfied with her performance, and wanted the attorney fee refunded). [11] We conclude that Magee pleaded the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim fo

2015Negligent failure to do so is a tort, as well as a breach of contract.” INS Investigations Bureau, Inc. v. Lee, 784 N.E.2d 566, 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citations omitted); Alvarado v. Nagy, 819 N.E.2d 520, 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (concluding that Alvarado’s complaint stated a claim for legal malpractice where he alleged that Nagy agreed to represent him to seek a sentence modification, Alvarado paid Nagy’s fee but was dissatisfied with her performance, and wanted the attorney fee refunded). [11] We conclude that Magee pleaded the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim fo

2015See Alvarado, 819 N.E.2d at 525 .

2008Dismissals under T.R. 12(B)(6) are “rarely appropriate.” Id. (citing State Civil Rights Comm’n v. County Line Park, Inc., 738 N.E.2d 1044, 1049 (Ind.2000)). 1 Though Indiana’s notice pleading rules do not require the complaint to state all elements of a cause of action, Miller v. Mem’l Hosp. of S. Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329, 1332 (Ind.1997) (citing State v. Rankin, 260 Ind. 228 , 294 N.E.2d 604, 606 (1973)), the plaintiff must still plead the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim.

2008Dismissals under T.R. 12(B)(6) are “rarely appropriate.” Id. (citing State Civil Rights Comm’n v. County Line Park, Inc., 738 N.E.2d 1044, 1049 (Ind.2000)). 1 Though Indiana’s notice pleading rules do not require the complaint to state all elements of a cause of action, Miller v. Mem’l Hosp. of S. Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329, 1332 (Ind.1997) (citing State v. Rankin, 260 Ind. 228 , 294 N.E.2d 604, 606 (1973)), the plaintiff must still plead the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim.

2008Dismissals under T.R. 12(B)(6) are “rarely appropriate.” Id. (citing State Civil Rights Comm’n v. County Line Park, Inc., 738 N.E.2d 1044, 1049 (Ind.2000)). 1 Though Indiana’s notice pleading rules do not require the complaint to state all elements of a cause of action, Miller v. Mem’l Hosp. of S. Bend, Inc., 679 N.E.2d 1329, 1332 (Ind.1997) (citing State v. Rankin, 260 Ind. 228 , 294 N.E.2d 604, 606 (1973)), the plaintiff must still plead the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim.

2001The court noted that the company had relied heavily on Remington Freight Lines, Inc. v. Larkey, 644 N.E.2d 931, 939-40 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), in which this court stated that it recognized "the distinction between employees who are retained for a definite duration or subject to contract, and employees whose employment is of indefinite duration, and may terminate at the will of the employer for any reason." However, the Bentz court then stated that "filing a grievance, the remedy available to [the employee] under the terms of the [Collective Bargaining] Agreement, is not the same as obtaining relief

1999Collins v. Day (1994) Ind., 644 N.E.2d 72, 80 (holding that statutes may grant unequal privileges or immunities under Art.

1995See Cohen v. Peoples (1966), 140 Ind.App. 353 , 220 N.E.2d 665 McGlone v. Hauger (1914), 56 Ind.App. 243 , 104 N.E. 116 .

1995See Cohen v. Peoples (1966), 140 Ind.App. 353 , 220 N.E.2d 665 McGlone v. Hauger (1914), 56 Ind.App. 243 , 104 N.E. 116 .

1995See Cohen v. Peoples (1966), 140 Ind.App. 353 , 220 N.E.2d 665 McGlone v. Hauger (1914), 56 Ind.App. 243 , 104 N.E. 116 .

1995See Cohen v. Peoples (1966), 140 Ind.App. 353 , 220 N.E.2d 665 McGlone v. Hauger (1914), 56 Ind.App. 243 , 104 N.E. 116 .