law of the case doctrine in Indiana

2025Br. at 10-14; Hr’g Tr. at 26-30.) The law of the case doctrine “is a discretionary tool by which appellate courts [may] decline to revisit legal issues already determined on appeal in the same case and on substantially the same facts.” Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 405 (Ind. 2000) (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus.

2016Valdez argues that he cannot be considered mentally ill for purposes of his right to represent himself and not mentally ill when being convicted. [26] As for Valdez’s right to represent himself, that issue is settled by the law of the case doctrine, “a discretionary tool by which appellate courts decline to revisit legal issues already determined on appeal in the same case and on substantially the same' facts.” Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 405 (Ind.2000).

2018“The law of the case doctrine provides that an appellate court’s determination of a legal issue binds both the trial court and the appellate court in any subsequent appeal involving the same case and substantially the same facts.” Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied (citing Dutchmen Mfg., Inc. v. Reynolds, 891 N.E.2d 1074, 1082 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)).

2018Id. (citing Godby v. Whitehead, 837 N.E.2d 146, 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)). [14] Edwards argues that the law of the case doctrine required the court in his 2003 retrial to avoid using the mens rea of “knowingly” in its instruction to the jury regarding the crime of attempted murder.

2012The doctrine of the law of the case is applied only “to those issues actually considered and decided on appeal.” Id. (quoting 4A KENNETH M.

2012“The doctrine of the law of the case is applied only ‘to those issues actually considered' and decided on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting 4A Kenneth M.

2013See State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind. 1994) (The law of the case doctrine mandates that an appellate court’s determination of a legal issue binds both the trial court and the court on appeal in any subsequent appeal involving the same case and relevantly similar facts).

2003The law of the case doctrine mandates that an appellate court's determination of a legal issue binds the trial court and ordinarily restricts the court on appeal in any subsequent appeal involving the same case and relevantly similar facts State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind.1994).

2019We agree. [34] "The 'law of the case' doctrine designates that an appellate court's determination of a legal issue is binding on both the trial court and the Court of Appeals in any subsequent appeal given the same case and substantially the same facts." Cha v. Warnick , 476 N.E.2d 109 , 114 (Ind. 1985).

2016Cha v. Warnick, 476 N.E.2d 109, 114 (Ind. 1985).

2018“The law of the case doctrine provides that an appellate court’s determination of a legal issue binds both the trial court and the appellate court in any subsequent appeal involving the same case and substantially the same facts.” Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied (citing Dutchmen Mfg., Inc. v. Reynolds, 891 N.E.2d 1074, 1082 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)).

2015Id. at 1190-91 . [10] “The law of the case doctrine provides that an appellate court’s determination of a legal issue binds both the trial court and the appellate court in any subsequent appeal involving the same case and substantially the same facts.” Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind.Ct.App.2010), trans. denied.

2024Co., 800 N.E.2d 1015, 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Landowners v. City of Fort Wayne, 622 N.E.2d 548, 549 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (citations omitted), trans. denied (1994)). [23] Because no appeal of the district court’s order was taken, the applicability of the law of the case doctrine is questionable.

2020Annexation Area Landowners, 622 N.E.2d at 550-51 (challenge to validity of certain signatures on a petition was barred by law of the case; the validity of the signatures as a whole had been raised and addressed in a prior appeal). [14] Even if the law of the case doctrine did not bar Pannell’s claim that the federal district court’s judgment is void, the claim is nonetheless without merit.

2020See Hopkins v. State, 782 N.E.2d 988, 990 (Ind. 2003) (“The law of the case doctrine mandates that an appellate court’s determination of a legal issue binds the trial court and ordinarily restricts the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2787| April 9, 2020 Page 5 of 8 court on appeal in any subsequent appeal involving the same case and relevantly similar facts.”). 1 Section 2 – The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. [6] Next, Noy argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on counts 1 (dealing in cocaine) an

2015This exception is available only in “egregious circumstances.” Brown v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1064, 1068 (Ind. 2003). [32] “The law of the case doctrine mandates that an appellate court’s determination of a legal issue binds the trial court and ordinarily restricts the court on appeal in any subsequent appeal involving the same case and relevantly similar facts.” Hopkins v. State, 782 N.E.2d 988, 990 (Ind. 2003).

2014“Upon remand following an appellate decision, trial court consideration of an issue may be precluded by application of the law of the case doctrine which requires a trial court to ‘apply the law as laid down by the appellate court.’ ” Riggs v. Burell, 619 N.E.2d 562, 564 (Ind.1993) (quoting Dodge v. Gaylord, 53 Ind. 365, 369 (1876)).

1996To invoke the law of the case doctrine, the issues decided in the appellate court's decision "must clearly appear to be the only possible construction of the opinion...." Egbert, 235 Ind. at 415 , 132 N.E.2d at 916 ; see also, Riggs, 619 N.E.2d at 564 ; Closson Lumber, 507 N.E.2d at 977 .

2020“Accordingly, the law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of all issues decided ‘directly or by implication in a prior decision.’” Id. (quoting Luhnow v. Horn, 760 N.E.2d 621, 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). [12] The law of the case doctrine is a “discretionary rule of practice.” Certain Ne.

2018Accordingly, under the law-of-the-case doctrine, relitigation is barred for all issues decided “directly or by implication in a prior decision.” Id. (quoting Certain Ne.

2014“To invoke the law of the case doctrine, however, the matters decided in a prior appeal ‘must clearly appear to be the only possible construction of the opinion.’ ” Id. (quoting Egbert v. Egbert, 235 Ind. 405, 417 , 132 N.E.2d 910, 916 (1956)).

2014“To invoke the law of the case doctrine, however, the matters decided in a prior appeal ‘must clearly appear to be the only possible construction of the opinion.’ ” Id. (quoting Egbert v. Egbert, 235 Ind. 405, 417 , 132 N.E.2d 910, 916 (1956)).

2020In re Change to Established Water Level of Lake of Woods in Marshall Cty., 822 N.E.2d 1032, 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

2005Accordingly, under the law of the case doctrine, relitigation is barred for all issues decided "directly or by implication in a prior decision." Id. (quotation omitted).

2016Platt v. State, 664 N.E.2d 357, 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (citations omitted).

2004The law-of-the-case doctrine, which is dis-ceretionary, stands for the proposition that: [Flacts established at one stage of a proceeding, which were part of an issue on which judgment was entered and appeal taken, are unalterably and finally established as part of the law of the case and may not be relitigated at a subsequent stage. , Platt v. State, 664 N.E.2d 357, 361 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citations omitted).

2020Hansom Revocable Trust, 855 N.E.2d 655, 662 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

2009Hanson Revocable Trust, 855 N.E.2d 655, 662 (Ind.Ct.App.2006).

2018Id. (citing Godby v. Whitehead, 837 N.E.2d 146, 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)). [14] Edwards argues that the law of the case doctrine required the court in his 2003 retrial to avoid using the mens rea of “knowingly” in its instruction to the jury regarding the crime of attempted murder.

2012The law of the case doctrine "is a discretionary tool by which appellate courts decline to revisit legal issues already determined on appeal in the same case and on substantially the same facts." Godby v. Whitehead, 837 N.E.2d 146, 152 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (citation omitted), trans. demied.

2017Stroud, Indiana Practice § 12.10 (2d ed. 1990) (emphasis omitted); accord Riggs v. Burell, 619 N.E.2d 562, 564 (Ind. 1993) (“Questions not conclusively decided in a prior appeal do not become the law of the case.”); Egbert v. Egbert, 235 Ind. 405, 415 , 132 N.E.2d 910, 916 (1956) (“[T]he parties have the right to introduce Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A05-1606-PL-1306| May 5, 2017 Page 13 of 16 new evidence and establish a new state of facts; and when this is done, the decision of the [court] ceases to be the law of the case . . . .”) (quoting Alerding v. Allison, 170 In

2017Stroud, Indiana Practice § 12.10 (2d ed. 1990) (emphasis omitted); accord Riggs v. Burell, 619 N.E.2d 562, 564 (Ind. 1993) (“Questions not conclusively decided in a prior appeal do not become the law of the case.”); Egbert v. Egbert, 235 Ind. 405, 415 , 132 N.E.2d 910, 916 (1956) (“[T]he parties have the right to introduce Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A05-1606-PL-1306| May 5, 2017 Page 13 of 16 new evidence and establish a new state of facts; and when this is done, the decision of the [court] ceases to be the law of the case . . . .”) (quoting Alerding v. Allison, 170 In

2015Moreover, ”[w]hen additional information distinguishes the case factually from the case decided in the first appeal, the law of the case doctrine does not apply.” Parker v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (Ind.Ct.App.1998).

2015See id. (declining to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine to issue of propriety of search and seizure where prior case was based on evidence submitted in pre-trial motion to dismiss, whereas the case at bar was based on additional evidence presented during trial). .

2013Miller v. Owens, 953 N.E.2d 1079, 1082 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

2013Miller v. Owens, 953 N.E.2d 1079, 1082 (Ind.Ct.App.2011), trans. denied.

2013Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind.Ct.App.2010); see also Pepper v. United States, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1229 , 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011) (“[A]s most commonly defined, the [law of the case] doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”).

2013Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind.Ct.App.2010); see also Pepper v. United States, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1229 , 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011) (“[A]s most commonly defined, the [law of the case] doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”).

2009See Perry v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 871 N.E.2d 1038, 1048-49 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine provides that "an appellate court's determination of a legal issue is binding in subsequent appeals given the same case and substantially the same facts").

2008See Perry v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 871 N.E.2d 1038, 1048-49 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (noting that application of the law of the case doctrine requires the same case).

2006Montgomery v. Trisler, 771 N.E.2d 1234, 1238 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied.

2006Montgomery v. Trisler, 771 N.E.2d 1234, 1238 (Ind.Ct.

2000In State v. Lewis, our supreme court further noted that the law of the case doctrine “ ‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit on their power.’” 543 N.E.2d 1116, 1118 (Ind.1989) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Indus *854 tries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816-818 , 108 S.Ct. 2166 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988)).

2000In State v. Lewis, our supreme court further noted that the law of the case doctrine “ ‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit on their power.’” 543 N.E.2d 1116, 1118 (Ind.1989) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Indus *854 tries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816-818 , 108 S.Ct. 2166 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988)).

2020“Accordingly, the law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of all issues decided ‘directly or by implication in a prior decision.’” Id. (quoting Luhnow v. Horn, 760 N.E.2d 621, 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). [12] The law of the case doctrine is a “discretionary rule of practice.” Certain Ne.

2019"Accordingly, the law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of all issues decided directly or by implication in a prior decision." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2023Kruse Found., Inc., 973 N.E.2d at 590 . [18] On appeal from the trial court on remand, Lake Imaging now attempts to circumvent the law of the case doctrine by arguing that the supreme court “specifically refused to address” the applicability of the PSS’s two-year limitations period, leaving that issue “ripe for decision.” (Appellant’s Br. pp. 12-13).

2013See Gates, 973 N.E.2d at 591 (determining that law of the case did not bar the court’s consideration of whether forfeited earnest money constitutes liquidated damages or a penalty because that issue was not expressly decided in the prior appeal).

1988The parties, the trial court, and this one in this second appeal are all bound by the law of the case doctrine, Horine v. Greencastle Production Credit Ass'n. (1987), Ind.App., 505 N.E.2d 802, 804 , and the issue preclusion doctrine of res judica-ta.

1988The parties, the trial court, and this one in this second appeal are all bound by the law of the case doctrine, Horine v. Greencastle Production Credit Ass'n. (1987), Ind. App., 505 N.E.2d 802, 804 , and the issue preclusion doctrine of res judicata.

2024Corp. v. Chester, Inc., 30 N.E.3d 738, 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

2015Corp. v. Chester, Inc., 30 N.E.3d 738, 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

2024Co., 800 N.E.2d 1015, 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Landowners v. City of Fort Wayne, 622 N.E.2d 548, 549 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (citations omitted), trans. denied (1994)). [23] Because no appeal of the district court’s order was taken, the applicability of the law of the case doctrine is questionable.

2019Co. , 800 N.E.2d 1015 , 1022 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). [35] Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, the trial court was bound by our prior holding in Gary 2 that the PLCAA does not bar the City's claims; absent any subsequent material change of facts, it was not free to revisit that decision.

2018See In re Change to Established Water Level of Lake of Woods in Marshall Cty. , 822 N.E.2d 1032 , 1044 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Fair Share Org., Inc. v. Mitnick , 245 Ind. 324 , 198 N.E.2d 765 , 766 (1964) ) ("Indeed, where new facts are elicited upon remand that materially affect the questions at issue, the court upon remand may apply the law to the new facts as subsequently found."), trans. denied . [10] There is no evidence of any new, material fact in the matter of Maciaszek's sentencing.

2018See In re Change to Established Water Level of Lake of Woods in Marshall Cty. , 822 N.E.2d 1032 , 1044 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Fair Share Org., Inc. v. Mitnick , 245 Ind. 324 , 198 N.E.2d 765 , 766 (1964) ) ("Indeed, where new facts are elicited upon remand that materially affect the questions at issue, the court upon remand may apply the law to the new facts as subsequently found."), trans. denied . [10] There is no evidence of any new, material fact in the matter of Maciaszek's sentencing.