Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 (2026)
Motion to dismiss; procedures and determination
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 9. (a) If a person files a motion to dismiss under this chapter, the court in which the motion is filed shall do the following:
(1) Treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment.
(2) Establish a reasonable time period, not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days, to expedite and rule on the motion.
(3) Specify time limits for the discovery of evidence to respond to material issues raised in the motion.
(b) The person who files a motion to dismiss must state with specificity the public issue or issue of public interest that prompted the act in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
(c) The court shall make its determination based on the facts contained in the pleadings and affidavits filed and discovered under the expedited proceeding.
(d) The motion to dismiss shall be granted if the court finds that the person filing the motion has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act upon which the claim is based is a lawful act in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
(e) The court must act on the motion to dismiss within thirty (30) days from the submission of evidence made by motion to the court that is discovered within the specific expedited time period allowed.
(f) If a court does not act within the thirty (30) days provided in subsection (e), the person filing the motion may appeal the matter based on the court's failure to rule on the motion.
As added by P.L.114-1998, SEC.7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · 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). “The anti-SLAPP statute provides that summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant has "proven by a preponderance of the evidence" that the act underlying the claim is a lawful act, I.C. § 34-7-7-9, while Rule 56 places a burden upon the movant to make a "prima facie"…”
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. § 34-7-7-9. II. The Anti-SLAPP Statute [9] The Anti-SLAPP statute protects a person’s right of free speech under the federal and state constitutions “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest[.”
Janice Brandom v. Coupled Prods., LLC, 975 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 . A motion to dismiss brought under this chapter is treated as a motion for summary judgment.”
Nexus Grp., Inc. v. Heritage Appraisal Serv., 942 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Standard of Review The trial court found that Heritage’s motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-7-7-9. 2 It is well established that to the extent that Trial Rule 56, which governs summary judgment motions, conflicts…”
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). “I.C. § 34-7-7-9(a)(1). Summary judgment is appropriate if the designated evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Shepard v. Schurz Commc'ns, Inc., 847 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “" Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 (d). 3 To establish a claim of defamation, a plaintiff must prove the existence of "'a communication with defamatory imputation, malice, publication, and damages"" Trail v.”
Kadambi v. Express Scripts, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 3d 900 (N.D. Ind. 2015). “2012) (citing Ind.Code § 34-7-7-9). “Speech is on a matter of public concern if it is addressed to ‘any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,’ as determined by its content, form, and context.”
Kevin Pack v. Truth Publ'g Co., Inc., & John S. Dille III, 122 N.E.3d 958 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “I.C. § 34-7-7-9(a). As our Supreme Court has made clear: [w]e review summary judgment de novo , applying the same standard as the trial court: "Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor 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 § 34-7-7-9 (b). The trial court shall: (1) treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment; (2) establish a reasonable time period, not to exceed 180 days, to expedite and rule on the motion; and (3) specify time limits for the discovery of evidence to respond to…”
Poulard v. Lauth, 793 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 34-7-7-9. 3 . Poulard does not argue on appeal that the summary judgments were erroneous.”
Mario L. Sims v. Emily Taylor (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “” Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 (a)(1). [6] The trial court held a hearing on the summary judgment motion on May 23.”
Circle City Broad. I, LLC v. At&t Servs., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2021). “" Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 (b). The statue also requires that the court base its decision on "facts contained in the pleadings and affidavits filed and discovered under the expedited proceeding.”
— Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9(a) — 3 cases
Hamilton v. Prewett, 860 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The anti-SLAPP statute provides that summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant has "proven by a preponderance of the evidence" that the act underlying the claim is a lawful act, I.C. § 34-7-7-9, while Rule 56 places a burden upon the movant to make a "prima facie"…”
Kevin Pack v. Truth Publ'g Co., Inc., & John S. Dille III, 122 N.E.3d 958 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “I.C. § 34-7-7-9(a). As our Supreme Court has made clear: [w]e review summary judgment de novo , applying the same standard as the trial court: "Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor 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 § 34-7-7-9 (b). The trial court shall: (1) treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment; (2) establish a reasonable time period, not to exceed 180 days, to expedite and rule on the motion; and (3) specify time limits for the discovery of evidence to respond to…”
— Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9(a)(1) — 2 cases
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). “I.C. § 34-7-7-9(a)(1). Summary judgment is appropriate if the designated evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Mario L. Sims v. Emily Taylor (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “” Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 (a)(1). [6] The trial court held a hearing on the summary judgment motion on May 23.”
— Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9(a)(I) — 1 case
Nexus Grp., Inc. v. Heritage Appraisal Serv., 942 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Standard of Review The trial court found that Heritage’s motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-7-7-9. 2 It is well established that to the extent that Trial Rule 56, which governs summary judgment motions, conflicts…”
— Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9(a)(l) — 1 case
Kadambi v. Express Scripts, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 3d 900 (N.D. Ind. 2015). “2012) (citing Ind.Code § 34-7-7-9). “Speech is on a matter of public concern if it is addressed to ‘any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,’ as determined by its content, form, and context.”
— Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9(b) — 4 cases
Hamilton v. Prewett, 860 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “The anti-SLAPP statute provides that summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant has "proven by a preponderance of the evidence" that the act underlying the claim is a lawful act, I.C. § 34-7-7-9, while Rule 56 places a burden upon the movant to make a "prima facie"…”
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). “I.C. § 34-7-7-9(a)(1). Summary judgment is appropriate if the designated evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Mario L. Sims v. Emily Taylor (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “” Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 (a)(1). [6] The trial court held a hearing on the summary judgment motion on May 23.”
Kurt Disser & Sabrina Graham v. Jennifer Cox (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9(c) — 1 case
Circle City Broad. I, LLC v. At&t Servs., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2021). “" Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 (b). The statue also requires that the court base its decision on "facts contained in the pleadings and affidavits filed and discovered under the expedited proceeding.”
— Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9(d) — 5 cases
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. § 34-7-7-9. II. The Anti-SLAPP Statute [9] The Anti-SLAPP statute protects a person’s right of free speech under the federal and state constitutions “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest[.”
Nexus Grp., Inc. v. Heritage Appraisal Serv., 942 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Standard of Review The trial court found that Heritage’s motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-7-7-9. 2 It is well established that to the extent that Trial Rule 56, which governs summary judgment motions, conflicts…”
Janice Brandom v. Coupled Prods., LLC, 975 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 . A motion to dismiss brought under this chapter is treated as a motion for summary judgment.”
Mark Campbell v. Andrew Campbell (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).
Circle City Broad. I, LLC v. At&t Servs., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2021). “" Ind. Code § 34-7-7-9 (b). The statue also requires that the court base its decision on "facts contained in the pleadings and affidavits filed and discovered under the expedited proceeding.”
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.