Ryan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[WJhile the language of subsection (f) provides clear evidence that the legislature intended for trial courts to grant expungements when none of the three factors in that subsection are found to exist, that same language does not provide any evidence of the Legislature's intent when only factor (F)(2) or ()(8) are found. ... We find evidence as to the Legislature's intent in other subsections of the Expungement Statute. Subsection (d) is especially illustrative. See I.C. § 35-38-5-1(d). Upon receipt of a petition for expungement, the trial court has complete discretion to (1) grant the petition summarily; (2) deny the petition summarily; or (8) to set the matter for a hearing. Id. § (d)(1), (2), (8). ... The animating principle behind subsection (d) seems to us to be trial court discretion in responding to a petition for expungement. As discussed, supra, the court has discretion to grant the petition summarily without considering any statutory factors. The court also has discretion to deny the petition summarily if it finds the petition to be "insufficient" or finds that "the petitioner is not entitled to expungement" based on information contained in sworn statements submitted by agency representatives. Id. § (d)(8). The trial court's discretion is further evidenced by the Legislature's silence as to when a petition is "sufficient" and when a petitioner is or is not "entitled to an expungement" based on information submitted by agency representatives. Only if a notice of opp”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gerber v. State

2. “because he had only one arrest. Id. at 46-47 . More recently, in Arnold, our Supreme Court undertook a thorough analysis of the expungement statute. In 1998, Arnold was arrested for Class A felony robbery, but charges were never filed. In 2006, Arnold successfully petitioned for ex-pungement of the records relating to that arrest. The State appealed, arguing that pursuant to subsection (£), Arnold was not eligible for expungement because he had a record of arrests other than minor traffic offenses. Our Supreme Court held”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gerber v. State

3. “only in limited cireumstances, which are reflected by trial court findings in that regard.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gerber v. State