pursuant rule in Indiana

12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Thacker v. Bartlettgreen indctapp · 2003 · cited in 3 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2004–2013 2 sentences 2013Under Trial Rule 12(B), a pleading that has been dismissed under Rule 12(B)(6) “may be amended once as of right pursuant to Rule 15(A) within ten [10] days after service of notice of the court’s order sustaining the motion and thereafter with permission of the court pursuant to such rule.” Because of this rule, “Thacker could reanimate his complaint while his new complaint was active in another court, thereby defeating the interests of fairness to litigants, comity between and among courts of this state, and judicial efficiency.” Id. 2013Under Trial Rule 12(B), a pleading that has been dismissed under Rule 12(B)(6) “may be amended once as of right pursuant to Rule 15(A) within ten [10] days after service of notice of the court’s order sustaining the motion and thereafter with permission of the court pursuant to such rule.” Because of this rule, “Thacker could reanimate his complaint while his new complaint was active in another court, thereby defeating the interests of fairness to litigants, comity between and among courts of this state, and judicial efficiency.” Id.	1	3
Parrett v. Lebamoffgreen indctapp · 1979 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1982–2015 2 sentences 2015The appropriate procedure for adjudging a motion to dismiss pursuant to the Indiana Trial Rules is discussed by this court in Parrett v. Lebamoff, 179 Ind.App. 25 , 383 N.E.2d 1107, 1109 (1979), where we stated: In salient part [T.R. 12(B)(6) ] provides, When a motion to dismiss is sustained for failure to state a claim under subsection (B)(6) of this rule the pleading may be amended once as of right pursuant to Rule 15(A) within ten (10) days after service of notice of the court’s order sustaining the motion and thereafter with permission of the court pursuant to such rule. 2015The appropriate procedure for adjudging a motion to dismiss pursuant to the Indiana Trial Rules is discussed by this court in Parrett v. Lebamoff, 179 Ind.App. 25 , 383 N.E.2d 1107, 1109 (1979), where we stated: In salient part [T.R. 12(B)(6) ] provides, When a motion to dismiss is sustained for failure to state a claim under subsection (B)(6) of this rule the pleading may be amended once as of right pursuant to Rule 15(A) within ten (10) days after service of notice of the court’s order sustaining the motion and thereafter with permission of the court pursuant to such rule.	1	2
Hartig v. Stratmangreen indctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017“Because the complaining party remains able to file an amended complaint, a dismissal under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) is without prejudice.” Hartig v. Stratman, 729 N.E.2d 237, 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (emphasis added), trans. denied (2002).	1	1
S.S.D.W. Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co.green ny · 1990 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., 76 N.Y.2d 228 , 557 N.Y.S.2d 290 , 556 N.E.2d 1097, 1101 (1990) (noting that the pursuant to the standard form AIA contract "Work include[d] only the exteri- or walls and the floor of the parking garage," and, therefore, "waiver of subrogation rights extend[ed] only to those specific areas"); but see Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc., 26 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1199-1200 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 144 (Cal.Ct.App.1994) (holding that the waiver of subrogation clause did not restrict waiver of damages to the work but, rather, the contract required a waiver against 2004Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., 76 N.Y.2d 228 , 557 N.Y.S.2d 290 , 556 N.E.2d 1097, 1101 (1990) (noting that the pursuant to the standard form AIA contract "Work include[d] only the exteri- or walls and the floor of the parking garage," and, therefore, "waiver of subrogation rights extend[ed] only to those specific areas"); but see Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc., 26 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1199-1200 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 144 (Cal.Ct.App.1994) (holding that the waiver of subrogation clause did not restrict waiver of damages to the work but, rather, the contract required a waiver against	1	1
United States v. Buckgreen ca10 · 2002 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002See, e.g., United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1341-42 (10th Cir.2002).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc.green calctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., 76 N.Y.2d 228 , 557 N.Y.S.2d 290 , 556 N.E.2d 1097, 1101 (1990) (noting that the pursuant to the standard form AIA contract "Work include[d] only the exteri- or walls and the floor of the parking garage," and, therefore, "waiver of subrogation rights extend[ed] only to those specific areas"); but see Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc., 26 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1199-1200 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 144 (Cal.Ct.App.1994) (holding that the waiver of subrogation clause did not restrict waiver of damages to the work but, rather, the contract required a waiver against 2004Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., 76 N.Y.2d 228 , 557 N.Y.S.2d 290 , 556 N.E.2d 1097, 1101 (1990) (noting that the pursuant to the standard form AIA contract "Work include[d] only the exteri- or walls and the floor of the parking garage," and, therefore, "waiver of subrogation rights extend[ed] only to those specific areas"); but see Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc., 26 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1199-1200 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 144 (Cal.Ct.App.1994) (holding that the waiver of subrogation clause did not restrict waiver of damages to the work but, rather, the contract required a waiver against	1	1

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
Stonger v. Sorrell green ind · 2002 2 sentences 2002Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353 (Ind.2002). 2002Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353 (Ind.2002).	2	2002–2002
Kimberlin v. DeLong green ind · 1994 1 sentence 2018Otherwise a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be given when justice so requires." To facilitate decisions on the merits, "the Indiana Trial Rules generally implement a policy of liberal amendment of pleadings, absent prejudice to an opponent." Kimberlin v. DeLong , 637 N.E.2d 121 , 128 (Ind. 1994).	1	2018–2018
Browning v. Walters green indctapp · 1993 1 sentence 2003Browning v. Walters, 616 N.E.2d 1040 , 1044 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), modified on reh'g on other grounds, 620 N.E.2d 28 .	1	2003–2003
Browning v. Walters green indctapp · 1993 1 sentence 2003Browning v. Walters, 616 N.E.2d 1040 , 1044 n. 2 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), modified on reh'g on other grounds, 620 N.E.2d 28 .	1	2003–2003

Where else courts name it

FL 18 (1986–2023) UT 13 (1994–2016) IN 12 (1982–2018) CA 11 (1971–2025) ME 7 (1973–2004) GA 7 (1967–2014) OK 4 (2016–2023) TX 4 (1992–2022) PA 3 (1972–2017) OH 2 (2003–2016) MA 2 (1987–2000) WA 2 (2020–2021)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check