Noe Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Company, Inc. (dissent on rehearing)

Opinion

FILED

DISSENT ON REHEARING Jul 13 2016, 11:56 am

CLERK

Indiana Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy F. Devereux Rick D. Meils Daniel A. Ladendorf Neil A. Davis Ladendorf Law John W. Mervilde Indianapolis, Indiana Meils Thompson Dietz & Berish Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR THE AMICUS CURIAE Alexander Jesus Limontes Indiana Trial Lawyers Association Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Noe Escamilla, July 13, 2016 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.

54A01-1506-CT-602

v. Appeal from the Montgomery Superior Court

Shiel Sexton Company, Inc., The Honorable Heather L. Appellee-Defendant Dennison, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 54D01-1107-CT-562

Baker, Judge, dissenting.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Dissent on Rehearing 54A01-1506-CT-602 | July 13, 2016 Page 1 of 2

[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., No.

54A01-1506-CT-602, Slip Op. at *8 (Ind. Ct. App. March 31, 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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana |Dissent on Rehearing 54A01-1506-CT-602 | July 13, 2016 Page 2 of 2