motion to dismiss rule in Indiana

2018INS Investigations Bureau, Inc. v. Lee , 709 N.E.2d 736 , 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied . 4 The Owners stated at the motion to dismiss hearing that they "kept trying and trying and trying to get those properties reassessed," but conceded that "going forward [they] would accept any changes in valuations that were required by law to any other property, just do it fairly. [They] didn't expect those values to stay the same." Transcript at 20-21.

2015Burks argued that even if the governmental entities were properly dismissed because of the failure to give proper notice, the claims against the sheriff as an individual should not have been dismissed. • Our Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the dismissal against the government “was a ‘judgment’ both final and appealable; it-left nothing, for resolution between the parties.” Id. at 889'.

1976Erwin, Inc. (1972), 152 Ind. App. 171 , 282 N.E.2d 841 , 848: “The office of the motion to dismiss under rule 12(b) (6) is simply to test whether the allegations of the complaint, liberally construed, are sufficient to make admissible enough evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff.

1976Erwin, Inc. (1972), 152 Ind. App. 171 , 282 N.E.2d 841 , 848: “The office of the motion to dismiss under rule 12(b) (6) is simply to test whether the allegations of the complaint, liberally construed, are sufficient to make admissible enough evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff.

1976If the plaintiff could recover upon any state of facts which might be proved under the allegations as laid, the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted and the motion must be denied. . . .” (Our emphasis.) See also, Roberts v. State (1974), 159 Ind. App. 456 , 307 N.E.2d 501 ; Reafsnyder et al. v. Warsaw (1973), 155 Ind. App. 455 , 293 N.E.2d 540 .

1976If the plaintiff could recover upon any state of facts which might be proved under the allegations as laid, the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted and the motion must be denied. . . .” (Our emphasis.) See also, Roberts v. State (1974), 159 Ind. App. 456 , 307 N.E.2d 501 ; Reafsnyder et al. v. Warsaw (1973), 155 Ind. App. 455 , 293 N.E.2d 540 .

1976If the plaintiff could recover upon any state of facts which might be proved under the allegations as laid, the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted and the motion must be denied. . . .” (Our emphasis.) See also, Roberts v. State (1974), 159 Ind. App. 456 , 307 N.E.2d 501 ; Reafsnyder et al. v. Warsaw (1973), 155 Ind. App. 455 , 293 N.E.2d 540 .

1976If the plaintiff could recover upon any state of facts which might be proved under the allegations as laid, the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted and the motion must be denied. . . .” (Our emphasis.) See also, Roberts v. State (1974), 159 Ind. App. 456 , 307 N.E.2d 501 ; Reafsnyder et al. v. Warsaw (1973), 155 Ind. App. 455 , 293 N.E.2d 540 .

1972A. Mass., 393 F. 2d 398 , wherein the Federal District Court for the State of Illinois held as follows: “ ‘The office of the motion to dismiss under rule 12(b) (6) is simply to test whether the allegations of the complaint, liberally construed, are sufficient to make admissable enough evidence to support a verdict for the plaintiff.