ILNews

Suit alleging unconstitutional school fees fails in COA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion County mother who sought damages for having to pay certain fees for her children to attend public school lost her appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals Monday. The judges agreed with the lower court that the state constitution does not permit her claim for monetary damages.

Linda McIntire’s children attended Franklin Township High School, where miscellaneous fees were charged for each student, including a $1.50 locker fee, a $2 activity fee and a textbook rental fee. She paid these fees, but then filed a lawsuit, alleging they were impermissible under the Education Clause in Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution.

McIntire sought an injunction preventing the school corporation from collecting the fees and sought the return of the fees already paid. The school corporation sought summary judgment, arguing that McIntire did not comply with the notice provisions of the Indiana Tort Claims Act and that the Education Clause doesn’t provide her with a cause of action for monetary damages.

The trial court agreed with the school corporation and granted it summary judgment.

In Linda D. McIntire, and those similarly situated v. Franklin Township Community School Corporation, 49A02-1401-PL-2, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court erred in finding her complaint was barred because she did not comply with the notice requirements of the ITCA. Citing Hoagland v. Franklin Township Community School Corp., 10 N.E.3d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), the judges pointed out McIntire’s lawsuit was not based on an injury to or death of a person, or damages to property. As such, it is not a “loss” as defined by the ITCA.

Lora Hoagland sued the same school corporation after it began charging students to ride the bus to and from school. The school corporation stopped the practice before the lawsuit made it before the appeals court.

In McIntire, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court on the constitutional issue. Her claim is also not based on a contract, as McIntire claimed, but instead argues the actions of the school corporation in charging the fees were unconstitutional. She is alleging a direct violation of the Education Clause, but the COA explicitly held in Hoagland that there can be no claim for monetary damages arising out of the Indiana Constitution.  

Hoagland is currently pending transfer before the Indiana Supreme Court.

 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT