law of the case

Term "law of the case," as generally used, designates the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same. Allen v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 61 Mich.App. 62, 232 N.W.2d 302, 303.

Doctrine which provides that an appellate court's determination on a legal issue is binding on both the trial court on remand and an appellate court on a subsequent appeal given the same case and substantially the same facts. Hinds v. McNair, Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 586, 607.

Doctrine is that principle under which determination of questions of law will generally be held to govern case throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort. Transport Ins. Co. v. Employers Cas. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 470 S.W.2d 757, 762.

The doctrine expresses practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided. White v. Higgins, C.C.A. Mass., 116 F.2d 312, 317, 318; Fleming v. Campbell, 148 Kan. 516, 83 P.2d 708, 709.

It expresses the rule that final judgment of highest court is final determination of parties' rights.

Doctrine of "law of the case" is one of policy only and will be disregarded when compelling circumstances call for a redetermination of the determination of point of law on prior appeal, and this is particularly true where intervening or contemporaneous change in law has occurred by overruling former decisions or establishment of new precedent by controlling authority. Ryan v. Mike-Ron Corp., Cal.App., 63 Cal.Rptr. 601, 605.

Doctrine is merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the power of the court, and will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision. People v. Medina, Cal., 99 Cal.Rptr. 630, 635, 492 P.2d 686.

Jury instructions.

It has been held that jury instructions are the "law of the case" where appealing defendant accepted instructions as correct, Mtna Life Ins. Co. v. McAdoo, C.C.A.Ark., 115 F.2d 369, 370;

where such were approved on former appeal and given at second trial, Whitehead v. Stith, 279 Ky. 556, 131 S.W.2d 455, 460;

where instructions were not challenged in any manner or in any particular, New York Life Ins. Co. v. Stone, C.C.A.Mass., 80 F.2d 614, 616; Codd v. New York Underwriters Ins. Co., 19 Wash.2d 671, 144 P.2d 234, 237;

where no objections or exceptions taken, Miller v. Mohr, 198 Wash. 619, 89 P.2d 807, 814.

See also collateral estoppel

- res judicata