The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted four cases on transfer.

A transfer disposition list issued by the Indiana Appellate Clerk’s Office on Monday shows the state justices at their weekly conference on Thursday declined 24 cases, and granted transfer in four.

In James C. Purcell v. Old National Bank, No. 49S02-1201-CT-4, the justices will hear a civil tort case involving a negligence and construction fraud claim by a subordinate creditor. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when granting judgment on the evidence in favor of Old National Bank regarding James Purcell’s negligence and constructive fraud claims, because the bank didn’t owe him any duty as a subordinate creditor. But the appellate judges also found the trial court abused its discretion in granting judgment on claims involving actual fraud, pecuniary damages from deception and tortious interference with contract claims.

The justices accepted Anthony H. Dye v State of Indiana, No. 20S04-1201-CR-5, after the Court of Appeals in November affirmed a 30-year sentence for a defendant determined to be a habitual offender. The appellate court examined the issue about the two convictions arising out of the same res gestae, and they held that the sentence increase didn’t constitute an impermissible double enhancement. Judge Melissa May dissented.

In State v. Steven Hollin, No. 69S05-1201-PC-6, the justices accepted a post-conviction case the Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished memorandum opinion. The intermediate appellate panel overturned the trial court’s grant of Hollin’s petition. The trial judge had determined Hollin was deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel and the prosecutor engaged in trial misconduct.

In Jacqueline Wisner, M.D. and the South Bend Clinic LLP v. Archie L. Laney, No. 71S03-1201-CT-7, the justices took the civil tort that involved Archie Laney’s attorney conduct at trial. The appellate panel found the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in determining Laney’s attorney’s actions did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial or in concluding that the trial court instructions were sufficient to dispel any confusion that may have been caused by Laney’s counsel’s final argument. The trial court didn’t err in finding that no impropriety occurred when a witness spoke to other witnesses before trial. But the court reversed on the issue of prejudgment interest and remanded for further proceedings.