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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues