Court Opinion

ID: 9712052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:45:35.100066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:09.042912
License: Public Domain

SHIELDS, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result. The State does not have to specifically allege malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office by a public officer or employee to have its complaint withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. State v. Rankin (1973), 260 Ind. 228, 230-31, 294 N.E.2d 604. However, I concur in the result achieved by the majority because the motion to dismiss effectively was deemed by the trial court and the parties as a motion for summary judgment, as allowed by Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 12 by the State’s admission it is exclusively statutory authority for this action is IC 5-11-5-1 and further, that the State has no evidence of any malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfea-sance on the part of any public officer or employee. These admissions entitled Brown to judgment as a matter of law.