ILNews

Supreme Court grants 4 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted four transfers yesterday in cases involving expungement of an arrest record, Indiana's prostitution statutes, a landlord/tenant dispute, and whether control or title is critical in determining whether the vendor in a land-sale contract owes a duty to third parties.

In State of Indiana v. Chad Arnold, No. 49A02-0610-CR-961, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court order denying the state's motion pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B), which requested relief from the order that Indiana State Police expunge Chad Arnold's arrest record for robbery. Arnold was arrested in 1993, but in 2006, he requested his arrest record for robbery be expunged pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-5-1 because the state never filed charges relating to the arrest. The appellate court remanded for a new evidentiary hearing on Arnold's request.

In Edwin Hayes Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 15A01-0707-CR-340, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate Edwin Hayes' conviction for promoting prostitution and to sentence Hayes on the conviction for attempted sexual misconduct with a minor, which he wasn't originally sentenced on because of double jeopardy concerns. It was a fundamental error for Hayes to be convicted pursuant a guilty plea to promoting prostitution because there wasn't sufficient factual basis. The appellate court affirmed his sentence for the convictions of child exploitation and possession of marijuana.

In Stan Klotz v. Sarah Hoyt and Chrissy Kornmann, No. 18A02-0707-CV-556, the Court of Appeals held Stan Klotz, the landlord of Sarah Hoyt and Chrissy Kornmann, complied with all relevant statutes regarding the handling of security deposits. As a result, the court reversed the dismissal of Klotz's complaint for breach of lease against Hoyt and Kornmann.

In Christine R. Scheible, as the mother of Travis David Scheible, deceased v. Fred Jackson, Ronald Smith, and Ray M. Scheible, No. 03A01-0704-CV-186, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Fred Jackson, Ronald Smith, and Ray Scheible on Christine Scheible's suit alleging Jackson and Smith exercised control of the property and owed a duty to the traveling public to maintain the property in a safe condition. Jackson owned the land the tree was on and had entered into an installment contract sale of real estate with Smith, in which Jackson retained the legal title but Smith took immediate possession of the property.

Travis Scheible was hit by a car while riding his bike on Smith and Jackson's property because his view was obstructed by leaves and branches of a tree on the property as he crossed the street. The Court of Appeals couldn't say as a matter of law that Jackson lacked a duty of care to Travis since Jackson only maintained the legal title to the property and not control over it.
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

  2. Payday loans take advantage of people in many ways. It's great to hear that the courts are using some of their sins to pay money back to the community. Hopefully this will help change the culture of many loan companies, and make lending a much safer endeavor for those in need. http://lawsuitlendingnow.com/lawsuit-loans-post-settlement.html

  3. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  4. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  5. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

ADVERTISEMENT