Law of the Case Doctrine

In general

• The 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.”

Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 128-29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied(quoting Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 405 (Ind. 2000), reh'g denied)

Clemons v. State, 967 N.E.2d 514, 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied, cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 659 (2012)(quoting Godby v. Whitehead, 837 N.E.2d 146, 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied)

• 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.”

Parker v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied)(quoting State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind. 1994), reh’g denied)

Hopkins v. State, 782 N.E.2d 988, 990 (Ind. 2003)(citing State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind. 1994), reh’g denied)(“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.”)

Smith v. State, 44 N.E.3d 82, 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)(quoting Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied)(“‘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.’”)

Cuto v. State, 709 N.E.2d 356, 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)(citing State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind. 1994), reh’g denied)(“Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court's decision on a legal issue is binding upon the trial court and the appellate tribunal in any subsequent appeal in the same case and involving substantially similar facts.”)

• [The law of the case] doctrine holds that “if the cause is submitted for a retrial upon the same facts which the decision was originally rendered, such decisions (sic) remains the law of the case and the trial court is bound thereby, as well as an appellate court on subsequent appeal.”

Devaney v. State, 578 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)(quoting Fair Share Org. v. Mitnick, 198 N.E.2d 765, 766 (Ind. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 843 (1964))

• The law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that: “[F]acts 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), trans. denied, cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1187 (1997)(quoting Otte v. Otte, 655 N.E.2d 76, 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), reh’g denied, trans. denied)

Purpose of the doctrine

• The purpose of the doctrine is to “promote finality and judicial economy,” . . . .

Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied (quoting Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 405 (Ind. 2000), reh'g denied)

See Perez v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1144, 1150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied(quoting Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 405 (Ind. 2000), reh'g denied)(“The doctrine exists ‘to promote finality and judicial economy.’”)

• The doctrine's “purpose is to minimize unnecessary relitigation of legal issues once they have been resolved by an appellate court.”

Parker v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied)(quoting State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind. 1994), reh’g denied)

See Cuto v. State, 709 N.E.2d 356, 360-61 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)(citing State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind. 1994), reh’g denied)(“The doctrine minimizes the necessity to relitigate legal issues once they have been determined by an appellate court.”)

Applicability of the doctrine

• [The law of the case doctrine] is applied only “to those issues actually considered and decided on appeal.”

Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied (quoting Cutter v. State, 725 N.E.2d 401, 405 (Ind. 2000), reh'g denied)

• [T]he matters decided in the earlier appeal must clearly appear to be the only possible construction of the appellate opinion.

Smith v. State, 44 N.E.3d 82, 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)(citing Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied)(“[T]he law of the case doctrine is discretionary . . . .”)

• “Thus, questions not conclusively decided in the earlier appeal do not become the law of the case.”

Smith v. State, 44 N.E.3d 82, 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)(quoting Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied)

• “[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.”

Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied (quoting Parker v. State, 697 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied)

Courts’ power to disregard the doctrine

• [T]he law of the case doctrine is discretionary . . . .

Smith v. State, 44 N.E.3d 82, 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)(citing Murphy v. Curtis, 930 N.E.2d 1228, 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied)

See Cuto v. State, 709 N.E.2d 356, 360-61 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)(citing Certain Ne. Annexation Area Landowners v. City of Fort Wayne, 622 N.E.2d 548, 549 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied)(“The doctrine is a discretionary rule of practice.”)

• The application of this doctrine is discretionary, and despite its availability, courts retain the power to revisit their prior decisions or those of a coordinate court in any circumstance, “although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.”

Platt v. State, 664 N.E.2d 357, 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied, cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1187 (1997)(quoting Otte v. Otte, 655 N.E.2d 76, 83-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), reh’g denied, trans. denied)

See State v. Huffman, 643 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind. 1994), reh’g denied)(quotation marks and citations omitted)(“[T]his Court has always maintained the option of reconsidering earlier cases in order to correct error. A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice. Finality and fairness are both important goals. When faced with an apparent conflict between them, this Court unhesitatingly chooses the latter.”)

See also Harper v. State, 963 N.E.2d 653, 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), aff’d in relevant part on reh’g, trans. denied(citing Hopkins v. State, 782 N.E.2d 988, 990 (Ind. 2003))(“A court may revisit its own prior decisions or those of a coordinate court, but courts should generally shy away from such review unless the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice.”)