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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT