Your comment appears to imply otherwise. Did I misread it?
> conflating "on the merits" with determining facts by considering evidence.
Do you mind elaborating on the difference?
My comment wasn't very clear. Sorry about that. Usually we think of a judgment "on the merits" as one that occurs after considering both the law and facts of a case.
> Do you mind elaborating on the difference?
In the case of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the judge in theory assumes that the facts alleged in the complaint are all true. If he dismisses the case, it is because as a matter of law the plaintiff cannot win. In such a case it is incorrect to say that the evidence was found to be lacking because the evidence was never considered.
I feel like now the disputable phrase is "considering the evidence". Is the judge not considering the evidence when deciding that the presented facts/evidence are insufficient to support the complaint, even when assumed to be true? How would such a ruling differ from a hypothetical one where the case goes to trial and the defense does literally nothing? Is the evidence considered in the latter case but not the former?
> The distinction between decisions that rest on the merits rather than on procedural grounds is important because a decision on the merits is considered final and is thus bound by res judicata... Decisions that do not rest on the merits, however, are not bound by res judicata because the claims were not properly heard. Thus, these claims may be brought forth in a subsequent case, excluding dismissals due to a failure to state a claim.
In addition, from Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie [0]:
> The dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a "judgment on the merits." See Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183, 330 U. S. 190 (1947); Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678 (1946).
[0]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/452/394/