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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT