Cheatham v. Pohle

Supreme Court of Indiana · 2003 · Torts

789 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsPunitive damagesTakingsIndiana Constitutiontakings clauseproperty interestIndiana Code 34-51-3-6violent crime victims compensation fund

Facts

After the parties' divorce, Pohle retained nude and sexual photographs of Cheatham. In 1998 he copied and distributed at least sixty photocopies around their small community, adding Cheatham's name, work location, phone number, her new husband's name, and her attorney's name. Cheatham sued and a jury awarded her $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Indiana Code section 34-51-3-6 required punitive damages to be paid to the court clerk, who would distribute twenty-five percent to the plaintiff and seventy-five percent to the State's Violent Crime Victims' Compensation Fund.

Issue

Does Indiana Code section 34-51-3-6, which allocates seventy-five percent of punitive damages to the State's Violent Crime Victims' Compensation Fund and twenty-five percent to the plaintiff, violate the state or federal Takings Clauses, Indiana's prohibition on demanding particular services without just compensation, or Article X, Section 1's uniform and equal taxation requirement?

Rule

Punitive damages are quasi-criminal, punitive rather than compensatory, and a plaintiff has no right or entitlement to recover punitive damages except to the extent state law creates one. Because Indiana law defines the plaintiff's interest in punitive damages as only twenty-five percent of any award under section 34-51-3-6, directing the remainder to the State does not take the plaintiff's property. A state demand on particular services under Article I, Section 21 requires that particular services be performed on the State's demand and without just compensation; there is no demand where an attorney voluntarily agrees to represent a client under an existing statutory framework.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Indiana, Lena Ortiz won $40,000 in compensatory damages and $120,000 in punitive damages against a roofing contractor in Evansville. Under a state statute, the defendant must pay all punitive damages to the court clerk, who then sends 25% to the plaintiff and 75% to a state victim-compensation fund. Lena argues the 75% distribution is an unconstitutional taking of her property.

How should a court rule on Lena's takings claim?

Explanation. The majority treated punitive damages as punitive, quasi-criminal, and noncompensatory. A plaintiff has no entitlement to punitive damages except to the extent state law creates one. If Indiana law defines the plaintiff's interest as only 25% of any punitive award, the remaining 75% is never the plaintiff's property, so directing it to a state fund is not a taking.