J.B., A Minor Child v. The Board of Trustees of Vincennes University (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. FILED Jun 19 2008, 9:10 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ERIC A. FREY Frey Law Firm Terre Haute, Indiana THOMAS J. BELCHER SHANNON L. ROBINSON Kelley, Belcher & Brown Bloomington, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA J.B., A MINOR CHILD, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VINCENNES UNIVERSITY, Appellee-Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 42A01-0708-CV-366 APPEAL FROM THE KNOX CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Sherry Biddinger-Gregg, Judge Cause No. 42C01-0512-PL-745 June 19, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING - NOT FOR PUBLICATION NAJAM, Judge J.B. has filed a petition for rehearing asking that we reconsider our holding that the trial court did not err when it entered summary judgment in favor of The Board of Trustees of Vincennes University ( the Board ). We grant J.B. s petition for rehearing for the limited purpose of correcting our Statement of the Case. We affirm our prior memorandum decision in all other respects. We acknowledge that, as J.B. points out, our statement of the issue presented in our memorandum decision is inconsistent with our discussion and holding. In that decision, we state the issue as whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment and subsequently state that J.B. does not challenge the trial court s determination that the material facts are essentially undisputed in this case. To correct that discrepancy, we restate the issue presented on appeal as follows: whether the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of the Board. But our description of J.B. s ultimate challenge on appeal remains intact, namely, J.B. contends that the trial court misapplied the law to [the] facts. We held, and we affirm, that the trial court correctly applied the law and did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. Petition for rehearing granted, memorandum decision affirmed. BAILEY, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
