Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Indiana Court of Appeals
Throgmartin v. Gregg Appliances, Inc.
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2012-06-19
The case Throgmartin v. Gregg Appliances, Inc. was an appeal heard by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in a brief opinion issued on June 19, 2012. Judge Friedlander authored the decision, with Judges May and Barnes concurring, though the provided excerpt contains no facts, legal analysis, or specific grounds for the affirmance.
business & regulatory
Harriman v. Harriman
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2012-06-19
This case, Harriman v. Harriman, appears to be a domestic relations matter filed under Indiana's DR docket, involving parties with the same surname and heard by the Court of Appeals of Indiana. The court, in a per curiam-style disposition with Judge Friedlander writing and Judges May and Barnes concurring, issued a mixed ruling that affirmed some aspects of the lower court's decision, reversed others, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The excerpt provided contains only the case caption, citation, date, and procedural outcome, with no details on the underlying facts, legal issues, or reasoning.
family law
Phelps v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2012-06-11 · cited 42×
Michael Phelps, a middle school student with an extensive record of disciplinary problems and prior juvenile adjudications, was waived from juvenile to adult court after he stole a gun, repeatedly threatened to shoot a fellow student, and fired at him on school property, resulting in his conviction for attempted murder as a Class A felony and a sentence of 35 years with five years suspended. On appeal, Phelps challenged the juvenile court's waiver of jurisdiction, the denial of his motions to close the proceedings and change venue, and the appropriateness and constitutionality of his sentence under the Indiana and U.S. Constitutions. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the waiver was proper given the seriousness of the offense and Phelps's history, that procedural rulings did not constitute reversible error, and that the sentence was not inappropriate in light of the premeditated nature of the attack or Phelps's character, nor did it violate prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment because it was graduated and proportionate to the crime.
criminal lawgunsprocedure
Healey v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2012-06-11 · cited 48×
David Healey was convicted in 1995 of child molesting as a class C felony. Years later, he was charged with multiple counts of failure to register as a sex offender under Indiana’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), including violations of internet-use and reporting rules, and he moved to dismiss on grounds that applying SORA’s registration requirements to his pre-1995 offense violated federal and state ex post facto prohibitions. The trial court denied the motion, found him guilty after a bench trial on stipulated facts, and imposed concurrent maximum sentences totaling eight years. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that SORA is a non-punitive civil regulatory scheme under U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Smith v. Doe and therefore does not violate the federal Ex Post Facto Clause, and that the same registration scheme, as applied to Healey, also satisfies Indiana’s ex post facto analysis under Wallace and Jensen. The court further concluded that the sentence was appropriate in light of Healey’s extensive criminal history and repeated failures to comply with release conditions.
criminal law
ANDROUSKY v. Walter
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2012-05-30 · cited 6×
In this child wrongful death case, James Androusky II sued Cole Walter after his three-year-old son drowned in Walter’s residential swimming pool while visiting with his mother and her husband, who had been told they were not welcome but stayed overnight anyway. The father alleged premises liability based on the lack of isolation fencing, a safety cover, and adequate supervision around the open in-ground pool. After a jury trial, the verdict was entered in Walter’s favor, and the father appealed, challenging several jury instructions on the child’s status as an invitee or licensee, the effect of the father’s attempt to abandon his parental rights, an administrative pool-safety regulation, and the parents’ failure to supervise near a known hazard. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the instructions correctly stated the law, were supported by the evidence, and properly guided the jury on premises-liability principles applicable to licensees and parental responsibility.
torts & liabilityfamily lawpropertyprocedure
Barker v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2012-05-30
In Barker v. State, the defendant appealed a criminal conviction or sentence to the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 36A05-1108-CR-401. On May 30, 2012, the court issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the trial court's ruling, with Judge Friedlander writing the opinion and Chief Judge Robb and Judge Bailey concurring. The excerpt provides no further details on the underlying facts, issues raised on appeal, or specific legal reasoning, as is typical for such summary affirmances.
criminal law