Court Opinion

ID: 9729391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:33:43.843622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:57.168540
License: Public Domain

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
concurring in result.
I agree with the result reached by the majority, but am unwilling to endorse the *185views expressed in the analysis of our supreme court's opinion in Williams v. Williams, 555 N.E.2d 142 (Ind.1990).
It is clear to me that the supreme court sought to narrow its holding in Williams to the facts of that case. For this reason, I do not believe Williams should be viewed as a case with broad implications on the jurisdictional questions confronting us in this case. Nevertheless, the majority determined that the facts of this case are sufficiently analogous to those in Williams so as to make that case applicable here. It therefore represents binding authority upon this court. I agree with those conclusions. I part company with the majority, however, to the extent that its analysis of this issue amounts to a too-thinly-veiled criticism of the Williams opinion. The Indiana Court of Appeals is bound by the pronouncements of the Indiana Supreme Court, and I see no reason to engage in a critique of the decision reached by our supreme court in Williams v. Williams, 555 N.E.2d 142. See Knowles v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1308 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (Baker, J., concurring in result).