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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT