Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-7-7-7 (2026)
Costs and attorney's fees; defendant successful in motion to dismiss
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 7. A prevailing defendant on a motion to dismiss made under this chapter is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
As added by P.L.114-1998, SEC.7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2021 · leading case: Hamilton v. Prewett, 860 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Hamilton v. Prewett, 860 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “I.C. § 34-7-7-7. We analyzed the relationship between the anti-SLAPP statute and Trial Rule 56 in Shepard v.”
Poulard v. Lauth, 793 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “is entitled to recover" under Ind.Code § 34-7-7-7. The Discovery Sanction On April 22, 2002, the trial court entered an Order Compelling Discovery and Entering Monetary Judgment against Lauth's attorney.”
401 Pub. Saf. & Lifeline Data Centers, LLC v. David Ray & the Comm. to Elect David Ray, 80 N.E.3d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “I.C. § 34-7-7-7. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1609-PL-2132 | July 5, 2017 Page 6 of 16 [11] Finally, the Anti-SLAPP Statute does not “supplant the Indiana common law of defamation,” but requires the person raising the defense to establish that his speech was…”
Scott v. Irmeger, 859 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “For example, in Poulard , our court determined that Indiana Code section 34-7-7-7, which allows a "prevailing defendant" to recover attorney's fees, likewise allows defendants whose insurers have paid such fees to recover.”
Maietta Constr., Inc. v. Wainwright, 2004 ME 53 (Me. 2004). “); Ind. Code Ann. § 34-7-7-7 (Burns, LEXIS through 2003 sess.”
Nexus Grp., Inc. v. Heritage Appraisal Serv., 942 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “I.C. § 34-7-7-7. Here, as a prevailing defendant, the trial court awarded attorney fees and costs to Heritage.”
Pierson v. Nat'l Inst. for Labor Relations Rsch., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1100 (N.D. Ind. 2018). “) This statute provides that a "prevailing defendant on a motion to dismiss made under this chapter is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees," Ind. Code § 34-7-7-7 ; see also Hamilton v.”
Filippo v. Lee Publications, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Ind. 2007). “Ind.Code 34-7-7-7 (2007). The court ORDERS that defendant file a memorandum on the issue of its legal entitlement to attorney’s fees by May 9, 2007.”
Paul Gresk, Tr. for the Bankr. Est. of Derek VanWinkle & Stacey VanWinkle on behalf of M v. & A v. their minor Child. v. Cortney Demetris, M.D., 96 N.E.3d 564 (Ind. 2018). “§ 34-7-7-7. But, if an anti-SLAPP motion is "frivolous" or "solely intended to cause unnecessary delay," the plaintiff may recover such fees and costs associated with answering.”
Janice Brandom v. Coupled Prods., LLC, 975 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind.Code § 34-7-7-7. The “anti-SLAPP” statute provides: It is a defense in a civil action against a person that the act or omission complained of is: (1) an act or omission of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the Constitution of…”
Paul Gresk, Tr. for the Bankr. Est. of Derek VanWinkle & Stacey VanWinkle on behalf of M v. & A v. their minor Child. v. Cortney Demetris, M.D., 81 N.E.3d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Ind. Code § 34-7-7-7 . However, if a court finds that a motion -to dismiss is frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to answer the motion.”
Kadambi v. Express Scripts, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 3d 900 (N.D. Ind. 2015). “at § 34-7-7-7. Conversely, if the Court finds that the anti-SLAPP motion was either' “frivolous” or “solely intended to cause unnecessary delay,” then the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.