ILNews

Court dismisses INDOT appeal for not following procedure

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Department of Transportation and the State of Indiana had their appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeals today because of a technicality in following procedure.

In Indiana Department of Transportation and State of Indiana v Robert Howard, et al., 49A05-0701-CV-36, the Court of Appeals dismissed and remanded INDOT's appeal of the trial court's denial of their motion for summary judgment because INDOT did not have an interlocutory order certified by the trial court and accepted by the Court of Appeals as an interlocutory appeal.

The appeal stems from a case in which Amber Howard died when the vehicle she was driving on State Road 8 in LaPorte County went off the road and crashed in November 2002. At the time, the road was being resurfaced and paved by E&B Paving Inc., which bid on and was awarded the job by INDOT. Robert and Lynn Howard, as co-administrators of Amber's estate and individually, filed a complaint against INDOT and E&B Paving.

INDOT filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it was not responsible for the negligence of E&B Paving. In August 2006, the trial court granted INDOT's summary judgment motion and INDOT's request to find there was no just reason for delay and direct entry of final judgment.

In response, the Howards and E&B Paving filed Trial Rule 59 motions to correct error with regard to the entry of summary judgment and in December 2006, the trial court entered an order granting relief to the Howards and E&B Paving. In the order, INDOT's motion for summary judgment was denied.

The Court of Appeals noted in the opinion that the parties proceeded under the assumption the trial court's denying INDOT's motion for summary judgment is a final appealable order under Trial Rules 54(B) and 56(C). An order denying summary judgment is not a final appealable order and can't be made into one under the trial rules 54(B) and 56(C), because no issues have been disposed of and no rights have been foreclosed by such an order, wrote Judge Margret Robb.

Instead, a party seeking a review of a denial of a motion for summary judgment must use an interlocutory appeal. INDOT had to first seek and obtain certification from the trial court authorizing an appeal from the interlocutory order and then have the Court of Appeals accept the appeal, which INDOT did not do. Because INDOT did not follow the correct procedure for brining an interlocutory appeal and this is not a final appealable order, the Court of Appeals ruled it did not have jurisdiction over the case and dismissed it and remanded it back to the trial court for further proceedings.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT