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
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. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT