ILNews

Suit alleging unconstitutional school fees fails in COA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion County mother who sought damages for having to pay certain fees for her children to attend public school lost her appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals Monday. The judges agreed with the lower court that the state constitution does not permit her claim for monetary damages.

Linda McIntire’s children attended Franklin Township High School, where miscellaneous fees were charged for each student, including a $1.50 locker fee, a $2 activity fee and a textbook rental fee. She paid these fees, but then filed a lawsuit, alleging they were impermissible under the Education Clause in Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution.

McIntire sought an injunction preventing the school corporation from collecting the fees and sought the return of the fees already paid. The school corporation sought summary judgment, arguing that McIntire did not comply with the notice provisions of the Indiana Tort Claims Act and that the Education Clause doesn’t provide her with a cause of action for monetary damages.

The trial court agreed with the school corporation and granted it summary judgment.

In Linda D. McIntire, and those similarly situated v. Franklin Township Community School Corporation, 49A02-1401-PL-2, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court erred in finding her complaint was barred because she did not comply with the notice requirements of the ITCA. Citing Hoagland v. Franklin Township Community School Corp., 10 N.E.3d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), the judges pointed out McIntire’s lawsuit was not based on an injury to or death of a person, or damages to property. As such, it is not a “loss” as defined by the ITCA.

Lora Hoagland sued the same school corporation after it began charging students to ride the bus to and from school. The school corporation stopped the practice before the lawsuit made it before the appeals court.

In McIntire, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court on the constitutional issue. Her claim is also not based on a contract, as McIntire claimed, but instead argues the actions of the school corporation in charging the fees were unconstitutional. She is alleging a direct violation of the Education Clause, but the COA explicitly held in Hoagland that there can be no claim for monetary damages arising out of the Indiana Constitution.  

Hoagland is currently pending transfer before the Indiana Supreme Court.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT