ILNews

Judges disagree as to athlete's eligibility

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One Indiana Court of Appeals judge believed his colleagues strayed from the evidence of recruitment and instead focused the family's financial plight when they decided the high school athlete didn't transfer schools primarily for athletic reasons.

In Indiana High School Athletic Association Inc v. Jasmine S. Watson, individually and by and through her mother, Valerie K. Watson and South Bend Community School Corp., No. 71A03-0901-CV-25, Chief Judge John Baker and Judge Patricia Riley affirmed the trial court's finding that the Indiana High School Athletic Association acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it ruled Jasmine Watson was ineligible to play basketball at South Bend Washington High School after she transferred there just before her senior year. Her family claimed the transfer was caused by her mother's work hours being cut, the impending foreclosure of their home, and extended family living in South Bend. The majority also upheld the trial court's entering a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IHSAA from enforcing its decision.

The appellate court ruled on the decision, even though Jasmine has since graduated, because if they find she was ineligible, it could make Washington forfeit wins or awards, plus the IHSAA has filed a countersuit against the Watsons for damages, and that case has yet to be resolved.

Judge Ezra Friedlander dissented on several issues, including whether the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing at which witnesses testified and evidence was introduced. He believed the trial court shouldn't have allowed for new evidence and should have just examined the record of proceedings before the IHSAA. The majority decided it wasn't in the position to second-guess the trial court's assessment of witness credibility and that the trial court permitted some evidence as relevant to the irreparable harm allegedly suffered as a result of the ineligibility ruling, not as relevant to the underlying merits of the case, Chief Judge Baker noted.

The trial court found much of the evidence relied on by the IHSAA was unsubstantiated hearsay or double hearsay because the organization failed to call witnesses to support the claims Jasmine and her mother had stated they were unhappy with her playing time at Elkhart and she was looking to go to Washington. The majority supported the decision to discount the evidence because the trial court found it to be incompetent. Judge Friedlander in his dissent claimed the testimony should have been allowed because it was "run-of-the-mill" hearsay and hearsay is permitted in an administrative proceeding as long as it is not objected to. The judge also believed the hearsay was deemed incompetent merely because it was hearsay.

Even taking into account the IHSAA evidence that Jasmine and her mother had spoken about transferring prior to her mother's work hours being cut, the majority focused on the family's financial situation as the primary reason they moved to South Bend.

"The IHSAA found Valerie's decision to be 'unusual,'" wrote Chief Judge Baker. "Perhaps it was, but only because she found herself in unusually trying circumstances."

Judge Friedlander believed the evidence supported the determination Jasmine was ineligible to play her senior year. The majority disagreed and affirmed the injunction placed by the trial court, ruling the injunction was not overbroad.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT