Cited by

see also Halva, d at 503 (“No longer is a pleader required to allege facts and every element of a cause of action.” (quotation omitted)).

“Usury is the taking or receiving of more interest or profit on a loan or forbearance than the law allows.”

much clearer notice of her claim, a pleading need only “give fair notice to the adverse party of the incident giving rise to the suit with sufficient clarity to disclose the pleader’s theory upon which his claim for relief is based.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., (); –50 (Minn. 1997) (“Although the [plaintiffs] did not specifically name their theory of liability .

18 (applying Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd.

Generally, on appeal from a district court’s order dismissing a complaint for failur e to state a claim under rule 12.02(e), “the only question before [the review ing court] is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Barton v. Moore

DECISION On appeal from a district court’s order di smissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under rule 12.02(e) of the Minnesota Ru les of Civil Procedure, “the only question 4 before [the reviewing court] is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” Barton v. Moore

“Under our law, the pleading of broad gener al statements that may be conclusory is permitted.”

“Under our law, the pleading of broad general statements that may be conclusory is permitted.”

The question is “whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” (Mi nn.

“U nder our law, the pleading of broad general statements that may be conclusory is permitted.”

(stating that, in appeal from rule- 12.02(e) dismissal, elements of claim must be considered “in the context of pleading requirements in Minnesota”).

One of the fundamental changes intended by the adoption of Rule 8.01 was “to permit the pleading of events by way of a broad general statement which may express conclusions rather than, as was required under code pleading, by a statement of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” Franklin , 265 Minn, at 394, d at 29 ; (“Under our law, the pleading of broad general statements that may be conclusory is permitted.”).

Grp., L.L.C., and “piercing the corporate veil is necessary to avoid injustice or fundamental unfairness,”

1 (2010); (applying section 645.26, subdivision 1).

On appeal from dismissal for failure to state a claim under rule 12.02(e), “the only question before [this court] is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.”

P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the question before this court is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief.” ().

On review, the appellate court must review the judgment on the pleadings de novo, id., and determine only “whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief,”

“When reviewing cases dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the only question before [the reviewing court] is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim *648 for relief.”