Ezra H. Friedlander

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthony Cole was convicted by a jury of burglary, robbery, criminal confinement, intimidation with a deadly weapon, theft, criminal gang activity, and carrying a handgun without a license after evidence showed he and an accomplice, disguised as police, broke into a home, restrained two women at gunpoint, and stole items including cash and guns from a safe; he later admitted to being a habitual offender and received an aggregate 50-year sentence. On appeal, Cole challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the gang-activity conviction, argued that several of his convictions violated Indiana's double-jeopardy clause, and contested the habitual-offender enhancement. The court reversed the criminal-gang-activity conviction for lack of evidence tying the offense to a gang, found that the theft conviction merged with the burglary and robbery convictions, dismissed the habitual-offender claim because Cole had admitted the enhancement and could not challenge it on direct appeal, and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case In Re Minick (No. 02A03-1109-DR-419) was a domestic relations appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals. On April 20, 2012, a panel consisting of Judge Friedlander (writing) and Judges May and Barnes (concurring) issued an unpublished memorandum decision that reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court's action indicates it found reversible error in the lower court's decision, requiring additional review or action below, though the excerpt contains no further details on the underlying facts or specific legal analysis.

family law

The Cerajewskis, sellers of a home in Posey County, Indiana, appealed the Vanderburgh County small claims court's denial of their motion to transfer venue in a breach-of-contract and fraud action filed by the Kieffners, the buyers. The small claims court had ruled that Vanderburgh County was a preferred venue because one buyer resided there when the claim arose, and it refused to move the case despite the Cerajewskis' arguments under Trial Rule 75 and Small Claims Rule 12. The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Appellate Rule 14(A)(8) permits an immediate appeal as of right only for orders refusing transfer under Trial Rule 75, which does not apply in small claims proceedings; venue there is instead governed by the simpler Small Claims Rule 12, for which no automatic right to interlocutory appeal exists. The Cerajewskis had not sought a discretionary appeal under Appellate Rule 14(B).

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In this case, the estate of James Santelli sued motel owner Abu Rahmatullah for negligence after Santelli, a guest, was robbed and murdered by former employee Joseph Pryor, who had obtained a master keycard during his brief employment without a criminal background check. A jury awarded damages of over $2 million but allocated 97% fault to Pryor, 2% to Rahmatullah, and 1% to Santelli, resulting in a small verdict against the motel owner; the estate appealed, arguing errors in jury instructions on fault allocation and exclusion of evidence about a prior police shootout at the motel. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on fault allocation. It held that Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act does not abrogate the common-law “very duty” doctrine in situations where one defendant’s negligence consists of failing to prevent another’s foreseeable intentional tort, as described in Restatement (Third) of Torts § 14, and that joint-and-several liability principles therefore apply rather than comparative allocation that would reduce the motel owner’s responsibility. The court declined to reach the allocation of fault to Santelli but noted that evidence of prior criminal incidents would be relevant to foreseeability on retrial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this paternity dispute, Mother K.C. gave birth to S.C. in 2008 amid uncertainty over whether B.H. or C.C. was the biological father. B.H. filed a paternity action and obtained DNA test results showing a 99.9997% probability that he was the father, but Mother and C.C. then executed a paternity affidavit and obtained an agreed order from the Hancock Circuit Court establishing C.C. as the legal father without disclosing the test results. B.H. petitioned for relief from that judgment on grounds of fraud upon the court, which the trial court granted. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the parties' knowing submission of the stipulated paternity order while aware of the contrary DNA evidence constituted fraud on the court that justified setting aside the earlier judgment.

family lawprocedure

In Crider v. State, the defendant pleaded guilty to theft as a class D felony and admitted to being a habitual offender under a written plea agreement that imposed a six-year sentence (three years enhanced by three years), which the trial court ordered to run consecutively to a similar habitual-offender sentence already imposed in Tippecanoe County. Crider appealed, contending that consecutive habitual-offender enhancements are not authorized by statute. The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that Crider had waived his right to challenge the sentence as erroneous under an explicit waiver clause in the plea agreement. The court reasoned that the parties had specifically contemplated the consecutive-sentencing issue during negotiations, as shown by the crossed-out concurrent-habitual language that Crider and his counsel had initialed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case, Royal v. State, was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 02A04-1108-CR-486. The appellant challenged a lower court ruling, and on March 23, 2012, the appellate court disposed of the matter through an unpublished memorandum decision. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in full. Judges Friedlander, Riley, and Barnes participated, with all three concurring in the result. No further details or analysis appear in the excerpted opinion text.

criminal law

The case Kimbrough v. State was a criminal appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 45A04-1106-CR-328. In an unpublished memorandum decision issued on March 21, 2012, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Judge Friedlander authored the decision, with Judge Riley concurring and Judge Mathias concurring in part while dissenting in part.

criminal law

In B.O. v. State, the Indiana Court of Appeals considered an appeal from a juvenile proceeding (case number 89A01-1111-JV-503). The court disposed of the matter through an unpublished memorandum decision that affirmed the trial court's ruling. Judge Friedlander authored the disposition, in which Judges Riley and Mathias concurred.

criminal lawfamily law

The case Richmond v. Mager was a domestic relations matter heard on appeal by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision that affirmed the trial court's ruling. Judge Friedlander authored the decision, in which Judges Riley and Mathias concurred. No facts, legal issues, or reasoning appear in the excerpted opinion text.

family law

In McDonald v. State, the defendant appealed a criminal conviction or sentence from a trial court to the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 35A05-1110-CR-529. The appellate court disposed of the matter through an unpublished memorandum decision that affirmed the lower court's ruling. Judges Friedlander, Riley, and Mathias participated, with all three concurring in the result, though the excerpt provides no further details on the underlying facts, legal issues, or specific reasoning.

criminal law

The case Keplinger v. State was an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief in an underlying criminal matter, filed under case number 35A02-1104-PC-359 in the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's ruling. Judges Friedlander, Riley, and Mathias all concurred in the affirmance.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a criminal appeal filed by Smith against the State of Indiana in the Court of Appeals of Indiana. The court issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The three-judge panel, with Friedlander writing and Riley and Mathias concurring, provided no further published explanation or analysis of the underlying facts, legal issues, or reasons for the outcome.

criminal law

Brandy Walczak sued Labor Works, a day-labor provider, alleging violations of Indiana’s Wage Payment and Wage Deduction Statutes for improper payroll practices. Labor Works moved for summary judgment, arguing that because Walczak was no longer on its payroll when she filed suit, her claim fell under the Wage Claims Statute, which requires the state Department of Labor (DOL) to investigate and initiate such actions. The trial court granted summary judgment to Labor Works. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that whether Walczak had been “involuntarily separated from the payroll” within the meaning of the Wage Claims Statute is a factual question that must first be decided by the DOL; therefore the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. The court remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

labor & employmentprocedure