Lydia Lanni v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al. - 5/1/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  May 1, 2013 
2:00 PM  EST

2 p.m. 49A05-1208-CT-392. This cause comes before us as a result of a civil tort action filed by Lydia Lanni (Lanni) against the NCAA, the University of Notre Dame, and the United States Fencing Association.  Lanni, a spectator, was struck in the left eye by a fencing sabre causing a severe injury while at a purportedly NCAA sanctioned fencing match at Notre Dame. The questions presented to this court focus solely on the procedural posture of the case with respect to the NCAA’s combined motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and/or motion for summary judgment.  Specifically, in her argument Lanni relies on the interplay between Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6) and Ind. Trial Rule 56.  Lanni asserts that the trial court erred by not providing adequate notice that it would treat NCAA’s combined motion as a motion for summary judgment and then refused to give her a “reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56”  See T.R. 12(B).  In a related argument, Lanni asserts that the trial court erred in denying her motion to stay briefing in order to obtain discovery to respond to NCAA’s motion for summary judgment.  Lanni also argues that the trial court erred when it subsequently entered summary judgment in favor of NCAA and denied her request to strike an affidavit, designated by NCAA. 

Back to Events
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT