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.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.