August 2025
On August 11, 2025, the Indiana Appellate Court ruled on an issue presented under Planned Parenthood Great Nw., Haw., Alaska, IN., KY., Inc. v. Med. Licensing Bd. Of Ind. Planned Parenthood sought declaratory and injunctive relief while they fought to clarify a constitutional issue of Indiana Code 16-34-2-1. The Court of Appeals stated that Planned Parenthood did not present a scenario where a persons right to an abortion is available under Article 1 Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution but prohibited by the new code. The Court further stated both the Life and Health exception and the Hospital Requirement did not impose a material burden. Based on this, declaratory and injunctive relief was denied. Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
In Nielson v. State, the Defendant appealed his convictions and raised three issues. 1. If there was fundamental error when a non-pattern instructions was given, 2. Whether the trial court abdicated its responsibilities for determining whether a person’s time will be restricted by giving the jury a specific findings form and 3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction under the incredible dubious doctrine. No. 24A-CR-2295, N.E.3d (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2025). The Court found that there was no fundermental error in giving the instruction. The Court also found that because Nielson didn’t bring up the argument about the specific findings at the trial level he waived them on appeal. Finally, the Court found that because there was circumstantial evidence along with the sole testimonial evidence the incredibly dubious doctrine did not apply. To see the full opinio visit public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
Case law update: the Indiana Appellate Court issued an opinion on August 27, 2025 for Sanders v. US Bank Trust Natalie Assoc. In this case the Court had to determine whether Ind. Code 32-30-10-14 allowed for a junior mortgage to have relief from a sheriff sale. Sanders agreed that the second mortgage ABS was not entitled to the proceeds of the sheriff sale when the code didnt specify for junior mortgages. The Court ruled that even though the code uses the singular term, it does actually apply to multiple mortgages as the rest of the code codifies a plural term AND the junior mortgage was granted relief prior to the sheriff sale and the ordered sale was intended to satisfy the junior mortgage. No. 24A-MF-1265 N.E.3d. Read the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.
The Indiana Court of Appeals issued a new opinion on August 29, 2025 in Ocampo v. State 24A-CR-2785 N.E. (Ind. Ct. App). In this case, the Court took up an interlocutory appeal about whether the search conducted by a K9 was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution and Article I Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The dog did a free air sniff of a vehicle, did not alert and then jumped into an open door and alerted inside the vehicle. The Court determined that because the dog was facilitated by the officer (when the officer removed his lead and allowed him to jump into the car) that the search was in violation of the search and seizure protections. The Court further stated that the good faith execution did not apply and the evidence collected should be suppressed. Check out the full opinion at public.courts.in.gov/decisions.