Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co.

62 N.E.3d 401, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 234, 2016 WL 4035343

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 13, 2016

DocketNo. 54A01-1506-CT-602

StatusPublished

This text of 62 N.E.3d 401 (Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., 62 N.E.3d 401, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 234, 2016 WL 4035343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

DISSENT ON REHEARING

BAKER, Judge,

dissenting.

[1] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to deny Escamilla’s petition for rehearing and I wish to reiterate the position that I expressed in greater detail in my previous dissenting opinion. See Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., 64 N.E.3d 1013,-1023 (Ind.Ct.App.2016) (Baker, J.,. dissenting). I believe that knowledge of a party’s immigration status alone sheds no meaningful light on the question of whether that party will one day face deportation. Such information cannot be “considered,” in any real sense of the word, and can serve only as a basis for speculation that will likely result in prejudice. I would vote to grant the petition for rehearing as I believe that the majority should address these concerns.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DISSENT ON REHEARING

BAKER, Judge,

dissenting.

[1] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to deny Escamilla’s petition for rehearing and I wish to reiterate the position that I expressed in greater detail in my previous dissenting opinion. See Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., 64 N.E.3d 1013,-1023 (Ind.Ct.App.2016) (Baker, J.,. dissenting). I believe that knowledge of a party’s immigration status alone sheds no meaningful light on the question of whether that party will one day face deportation. Such information cannot be “considered,” in any real sense of the word, and can serve only as a basis for speculation that will likely result in prejudice. I would vote to grant the petition for rehearing as I believe that the majority should address these concerns.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 N.E.3d 401, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 234, 2016 WL 4035343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escamilla-v-shiel-sexton-co-indctapp-2016.