« Ind. Law - More on: Words matter, regardless of a legislator's, or legislature's, intent | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 today (and 13 NFP) »

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Ind. Decisions - More on "IHSAA appealing Jasmine Watson ruling"

Updating this ILB entry from Jan. 24th, which quoted a South Bend Tribune story that began:

The Indiana High School Athletic Association served notice Friday of its plans to appeal a Dec. 19 St. Joseph Circuit Court ruling allowing senior Jasmine Watson to play for the team.

Jasmine, a 6-foot-3-inch center who has verbally committed to play next year for the University of Massachusetts, transferred from Elkhart Memorial at the start of the school year. Elkhart Memorial refused to sign off on her eligibility, saying it believed she transferred to Washington for primarily athletic reasons, a violation of IHSAA rules.

When the IHSAA agreed, Jasmine sought a preliminary injunction against the ruling in St. Joseph Circuit Court. Her mother, Valerie, who had her hours cut at an Elkhart factory and lost her home to foreclosure, argued that the family moved to South Bend for economic reasons and to be closer to their extended family on the city's west side.

The Court of Appeals today, in a 44-page, 2-1 decision, IHSAA v. Jasmine S. Watson, affirmed the lower court. Chief Judge Baker writes in the 28-page majority opinion:
I. Mootness. Although the parties do not raise the issue, it is likely that many readers will wonder why this matter is anything other than moot, given that the 2008-09 basketball season concluded months ago and Jasmine has since graduated from high school. * * * [I]t is well established that ―an otherwise moot case may be decided on the merits if the case involves a question of great public interest. * * * Moreover, the specific issue of a family being forced to relocate because of financial pressures is very likely to recur. Therefore, even if the issue herein were moot, we would decide the merits under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

II. Standard of Review. * * * In reviewing the IHSAA‘s decision, the trial court was to apply an ―arbitrary and capricious standard of review * * *

III. The Injunction: Likelihood of Success on the Merits. * * * We find that the record amply supports the trial court‘s conclusions that the IHSAA‘s conduct rose to the level of willful and unreasonable decision-making that was in disregard of the facts and circumstances before it and that, consequently, it acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Therefore, the trial court did not err by finding that the Watsons established a likelihood of success on the merits and entering a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the ineligibility decision.

IV. The Injunction: Breadth. The IHSAA also argues that even if the injunction was properly entered, it was overbroad. * * * Though the IHSAA protests that its decision concerned Jasmine‘s eligibility to take part in athletics rather than Coach Scott and/or Washington‘s violations of the rules, the IHSAA made it a part of the underlying issues herein when it explicitly found that Coach Scott had violated the Undue Influence Rule as part of its order. Given that the trial court found that the IHSAA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in that regard, it is logical that the trial court would have deemed it necessary to prevent the IHSAA from taking further action against Washington and its coaches based on these facts. Therefore, we do not find that the injunction order was overly broad.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RILEY, J., concurs.
FRIEDLANDER, J., dissent with opinion. [which begins, at p. 29] I respectfully dissent from the Majority‘s conclusion that the trial court in this case correctly entered an injunction preventing the IHSAA from enforcing its eligibility determination. In my view, the Majority decision suffers the same flaw as did the trial court‘s – it employs an over-zealous review that does not accord the IHSAA decision sufficient deference.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 24, 2009 10:14 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions