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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT