Court dismisses INDOT appeal for not following procedure

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
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.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.