> 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 phr

> 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?