law of the case doctrine in Alaska

2024Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson (Carlson V), 270 P.3d 755, 760 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Beal, 209 P.3d at 1017 ). -13- 7694 “(1) avoidance of indefinite litigation[]; (2) consistency of results . . . (3) . . . fairness between the parties; and (4) judicial efficiency.” 26 “[T]he law of the case doctrine ‘is not an absolute rule of law’ but rather ‘a matter of sound judicial policy.’ ”27 “[I]ssues previously adjudicated can only be reconsidered where there exist exceptional circumstances presenting a clear error constituting a manifest injustice.”28 Even “[i]f the elements of the law of the cas

2024Additionally, a new superior court judge on remand cannot reconsider decisions affirmed on appeal “without violating the law of the case doctrine.” Beal, 209 P.3d at 1017 . 21 See Beal, 209 P.3d at 1016 .

2024Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson (Carlson III), 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003)). 29 Robert A. v. Tatiana D., 474 P.3d 651, 655 (Alaska 2020), see also Smith v. Cleary, 24 P.3d 1245, 1248 (Alaska 2001) (“The doctrine of the law of the case is a matter of judicial policy and describes ‘the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided,’ but does not limit their power to do so.” (quoting West, 981 P.2d at 1067 )). -14- 7694 subdivision to bring a legal action within six years of when the cause of action accrues. 30 Applying that statute, the Commissioner ruled that the a

2022In fact, by enforcing the indemnity provision, the court obviated the need to consider setting aside the property settlement entirely due to negation of its 25 Farrell ex rel Farrell v. Dome Labs., a Div. of Miles Labs., Inc., 650 P.2d 380, 383 (Alaska 1982). 26 Robert A., 474 P.3d at 655 . 27 Carlson, 270 P.3d at 760 (quoting Carlson, 65 P.3d at 859 ). -13- 7586 underlying assumptions.28 It was appropriate not to apply the law of the case doctrine here.

2022In 2018 we affirmed the denial on appeal.14 Our decision is the law of the case even though we did not address the merits of Donald’s calculation issues; the elements of the doctrine are plainly satisfied.15 Donald is correct that the superior court retains the discretion to override the doctrine,16 and the court’s comments may reflect at least its “off the cuff” perception that it had no such discretion.17 But an exception from the law of the case doctrine is 13 Robert A. v. Tatiana D., 474 P.3d 651, 655 (Alaska 2020) (citation omitted) (quoting Barber v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 393 P.3d 412,

2020A specific issue of fact is a proper subject for law of the case as well as for collateral estoppel.12 9 Barber v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 393 P.3d 412, 419 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Beal v. Beal, 209 P.3d 1012, 1016 (Alaska 2009)). 10 Id. (quoting Dunlap v. Dunlap, 131 P.3d 471, 476 (Alaska 2006)). 11 Id. 12 See Andrea C. v. Marcus K., 355 P.3d 521, 527 (Alaska 2015) (“[C]ollateral estoppel bars relitigaton of all issues of fact . . . that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in [a] prior proceeding.” (alterations in original) (quoting Wall v. Stinson, 983 P.2d 736, 740 (Alaska 1999)))

2020A specific issue of fact is a proper subject for law of the case as well as for collateral estoppel.12 9 Barber v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 393 P.3d 412, 419 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Beal v. Beal, 209 P.3d 1012, 1016 (Alaska 2009)). 10 Id. (quoting Dunlap v. Dunlap, 131 P.3d 471, 476 (Alaska 2006)). 11 Id. 12 See Andrea C. v. Marcus K., 355 P.3d 521, 527 (Alaska 2015) (“[C]ollateral estoppel bars relitigaton of all issues of fact . . . that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in [a] prior proceeding.” (alterations in original) (quoting Wall v. Stinson, 983 P.2d 736, 740 (Alaska 1999)))

2020A specific issue of fact is a proper subject for law of the case as well as for collateral estoppel.12 9 Barber v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 393 P.3d 412, 419 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Beal v. Beal, 209 P.3d 1012, 1016 (Alaska 2009)). 10 Id. (quoting Dunlap v. Dunlap, 131 P.3d 471, 476 (Alaska 2006)). 11 Id. 12 See Andrea C. v. Marcus K., 355 P.3d 521, 527 (Alaska 2015) (“[C]ollateral estoppel bars relitigaton of all issues of fact . . . that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in [a] prior proceeding.” (alterations in original) (quoting Wall v. Stinson, 983 P.2d 736, 740 (Alaska 1999)))

2024And the law of the case doctrine still controls as it also applies to “questionable decisions.” See Carlson, 270 P.3d at 760 . 23 474 P.3d at 655 . 24 See, e.g., Patrick v. Sedwick, 413 P.2d 169, 173 (Alaska 1966) (“It is a well settled rule of law that whatever issues have been decided on a first appeal will not be re-examined on a second appeal in the same case.” (emphasis added)); Wolff v. Arctic Bowl, Inc., 560 P.2d 758, 763 (Alaska 1977); Dieringer v. Martin, 187 P.3d 468, 474 (Alaska 2008); Beal, 209 P.3d at 1016-17 . -8- 2039 same case.

1993As an application of the law of the case doctrine — which is a rule of judicial convenience rather than a rule of law, id. at 763 n. 5, — the dismissal order would technically amount to a determination of the insufficiency of the second indictment, allowing the state a direct appeal on the issue of insufficiency.

2024Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson (Carlson III), 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003)). 29 Robert A. v. Tatiana D., 474 P.3d 651, 655 (Alaska 2020), see also Smith v. Cleary, 24 P.3d 1245, 1248 (Alaska 2001) (“The doctrine of the law of the case is a matter of judicial policy and describes ‘the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided,’ but does not limit their power to do so.” (quoting West, 981 P.2d at 1067 )). -14- 7694 subdivision to bring a legal action within six years of when the cause of action accrues. 30 Applying that statute, the Commissioner ruled that the a

2024And the law of the case doctrine still controls as it also applies to “questionable decisions.” See Carlson, 270 P.3d at 760 . 23 474 P.3d at 655 . 24 See, e.g., Patrick v. Sedwick, 413 P.2d 169, 173 (Alaska 1966) (“It is a well settled rule of law that whatever issues have been decided on a first appeal will not be re-examined on a second appeal in the same case.” (emphasis added)); Wolff v. Arctic Bowl, Inc., 560 P.2d 758, 763 (Alaska 1977); Dieringer v. Martin, 187 P.3d 468, 474 (Alaska 2008); Beal, 209 P.3d at 1016-17 . -8- 2039 same case.

2024Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson (Carlson III), 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003)). 29 Robert A. v. Tatiana D., 474 P.3d 651, 655 (Alaska 2020), see also Smith v. Cleary, 24 P.3d 1245, 1248 (Alaska 2001) (“The doctrine of the law of the case is a matter of judicial policy and describes ‘the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided,’ but does not limit their power to do so.” (quoting West, 981 P.2d at 1067 )). -14- 7694 subdivision to bring a legal action within six years of when the cause of action accrues. 30 Applying that statute, the Commissioner ruled that the a

2017And as we stated in Dunlap, “issues previously adjudicated can only be reconsidered where there exist ‘exceptional circumstances’ presenting ‘a clear error constituting a manifest injustice.’ ”36 In Smith v. Cleary we applied a law of the case analysis to a superior court order in Cleary litigation.37 In 2000 the Department moved to terminate the Final Settlement Agreement pursuant to the APLRA.38 The Cleary class opposed the motion arguing that the APLRA was unconstitutional.39 Judge Andrews issued a decision declaring the APLRA constitutional, but she determined that the APLRA only “withstan

2024And the law of the case doctrine still controls as it also applies to “questionable decisions.” See Carlson, 270 P.3d at 760 . 23 474 P.3d at 655 . 24 See, e.g., Patrick v. Sedwick, 413 P.2d 169, 173 (Alaska 1966) (“It is a well settled rule of law that whatever issues have been decided on a first appeal will not be re-examined on a second appeal in the same case.” (emphasis added)); Wolff v. Arctic Bowl, Inc., 560 P.2d 758, 763 (Alaska 1977); Dieringer v. Martin, 187 P.3d 468, 474 (Alaska 2008); Beal, 209 P.3d at 1016-17 . -8- 2039 same case.

2020Their names have been removed from the caption for this appeal. 2 State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson, 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003) (footnote omitted) (first quoting Patrick v. Sedwick, 413 P.2d 169, 173-74 (Alaska 1966); then quoting Alaska Diversified Contractors, Inc. v. Lower Kuskokwim Sch.

2022The superior court described its comments on the record both as “preliminary thoughts” and then as a “partial ruling” denying the motion to enforce, which was “without prejudice to [Vieanna’s] re-filing . . . another motion.” On one hand, we have held that “[a] judgment of dismissal without prejudice is considered a final judgment for purposes of 21 (...continued) emphasis removed) (quoting Rekhi v. Wildwood Indus., Inc., 61 F.3d 1313, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995)). 22 Id. (quoting Barber v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 393 P.3d 412, 419 (Alaska 2017)). 23 Id. (quoting Hallam v. Holland Am.

2020Collateral estoppel “limits the relitigation of an issue in a subsequent suit, as opposed to a subsequent stage of the same suit,” whereas the law of the case doctrine “limits redetermination of rulings made earlier in the same lawsuit.”8 The preclusive effect of the law of the case doctrine extends to “the reconsideration of issues which have 6 See AS 25.24.150(i) (providing that when both parents have a history of perpetrating domestic violence, the court shall either (1) award sole legal and physical custody to the parent who is less likely to continue to perpetrate violence and require cus

2020A specific issue of fact is a proper subject for law of the case as well as for collateral estoppel.12 9 Barber v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 393 P.3d 412, 419 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Beal v. Beal, 209 P.3d 1012, 1016 (Alaska 2009)). 10 Id. (quoting Dunlap v. Dunlap, 131 P.3d 471, 476 (Alaska 2006)). 11 Id. 12 See Andrea C. v. Marcus K., 355 P.3d 521, 527 (Alaska 2015) (“[C]ollateral estoppel bars relitigaton of all issues of fact . . . that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in [a] prior proceeding.” (alterations in original) (quoting Wall v. Stinson, 983 P.2d 736, 740 (Alaska 1999)))

1997See Rooney v. Rooney, 914 P.2d 212 (Alaska 1996).

2001See, eg., Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944, 952 (2d Cir.1964); White v. Higgins, 116 F.2d 312, 317 (1st Cir.1940).

1966This statement was adopted in its entirety in the Schaff case by Associate Justice Edgerton. [28] 116 F.2d 312, 317 (1st Cir.1940). [29] See Kaku Nagano v. Brownell, 212 F.2d 262, 263 (7th Cir.1954), where the court, in reference to the law of the case rule, stated: In other words, though the rule that what is said on appeal becomes the law of the case is not an iron-clad rule which denies power in the court to correct its manifest error, it is one of sound policy.

1999The law of the case doctrine “requires a lower court to follow an appellate court’s prior decision and prohibits reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in an appeal of the case.” Bauman v. Day, 942 P.2d 1130 , 1132 n. 1 (Alaska 1997) (citing Mogg v. National Bank of Alaska, 846 P.2d 806, 810 (Alaska 1993)).

1997Mogg v. National Bank of Alaska, 846 P.2d 806, 810 (Alaska 1993).

2024Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson (Carlson V), 270 P.3d 755, 760 (Alaska 2012) (quoting Beal, 209 P.3d at 1017 ). -13- 7694 “(1) avoidance of indefinite litigation[]; (2) consistency of results . . . (3) . . . fairness between the parties; and (4) judicial efficiency.” 26 “[T]he law of the case doctrine ‘is not an absolute rule of law’ but rather ‘a matter of sound judicial policy.’ ”27 “[I]ssues previously adjudicated can only be reconsidered where there exist exceptional circumstances presenting a clear error constituting a manifest injustice.”28 Even “[i]f the elements of the law of the cas

2024And the law of the case doctrine still controls as it also applies to “questionable decisions.” See Carlson, 270 P.3d at 760 . 23 474 P.3d at 655 . 24 See, e.g., Patrick v. Sedwick, 413 P.2d 169, 173 (Alaska 1966) (“It is a well settled rule of law that whatever issues have been decided on a first appeal will not be re-examined on a second appeal in the same case.” (emphasis added)); Wolff v. Arctic Bowl, Inc., 560 P.2d 758, 763 (Alaska 1977); Dieringer v. Martin, 187 P.3d 468, 474 (Alaska 2008); Beal, 209 P.3d at 1016-17 . -8- 2039 same case.

2024Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Carlson (Carlson III), 65 P.3d 851, 859 (Alaska 2003)). 29 Robert A. v. Tatiana D., 474 P.3d 651, 655 (Alaska 2020), see also Smith v. Cleary, 24 P.3d 1245, 1248 (Alaska 2001) (“The doctrine of the law of the case is a matter of judicial policy and describes ‘the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided,’ but does not limit their power to do so.” (quoting West, 981 P.2d at 1067 )). -14- 7694 subdivision to bring a legal action within six years of when the cause of action accrues. 30 Applying that statute, the Commissioner ruled that the a

2003See Smith v. Cleary, 24 P.3d 1245, 1248 (Alaska 2001) ("The doctrine of the law of the case is a matter of judicial policy and describes 'the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided,' but does not limit their power to do so.”) (quoting West v. Buchanan, 981 P.2d 1065, 1067 (Alaska 1999)) (citations omitted). 63 .

2024And the law of the case doctrine still controls as it also applies to “questionable decisions.” See Carlson, 270 P.3d at 760 . 23 474 P.3d at 655 . 24 See, e.g., Patrick v. Sedwick, 413 P.2d 169, 173 (Alaska 1966) (“It is a well settled rule of law that whatever issues have been decided on a first appeal will not be re-examined on a second appeal in the same case.” (emphasis added)); Wolff v. Arctic Bowl, Inc., 560 P.2d 758, 763 (Alaska 1977); Dieringer v. Martin, 187 P.3d 468, 474 (Alaska 2008); Beal, 209 P.3d at 1016-17 . -8- 2039 same case.

2020A specific issue of fact is a proper subject for law of the case as well as for collateral estoppel.12 9 Barber v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 393 P.3d 412, 419 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Beal v. Beal, 209 P.3d 1012, 1016 (Alaska 2009)). 10 Id. (quoting Dunlap v. Dunlap, 131 P.3d 471, 476 (Alaska 2006)). 11 Id. 12 See Andrea C. v. Marcus K., 355 P.3d 521, 527 (Alaska 2015) (“[C]ollateral estoppel bars relitigaton of all issues of fact . . . that were actually litigated and necessarily decided in [a] prior proceeding.” (alterations in original) (quoting Wall v. Stinson, 983 P.2d 736, 740 (Alaska 1999)))

2003U.S. v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 566 , 121 S.Ct. 1782 , 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001) ("The law of the case doctrine presumes a hearing on the merits.”). 56 .

2003U.S. v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 566 , 121 S.Ct. 1782 , 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001) ("The law of the case doctrine presumes a hearing on the merits.”). 56 .

1986Id. at 36 .

1985Stepanov v. Gavrilovich, 594 P.2d 30, 36 (Alaska 1978).

2024Cf. Gross v. Wilson, 424 P.3d 390, 397 (Alaska 2018) (concluding party not entitled to relief under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(4) because judgment “might have been voidable if properly challenged” but was not void). -7- 2039 the superior court’s use of QDROs, and the court’s order that required Faris to make pre-QDRO payments to Taylor. 22 Faris’s attempts to circumvent the law of the case doctrine absent a showing of exceptional circumstances are unpersuasive.

2024Servs, 509 P.3d 376, 381 (Alaska 2022) (quoting Beal, 209 P.3d at 1016 ). 25 State, Com.

2024The law of the case doctrine does not apply here. 40 In re the 2021 Redistricting Cases, 528 P.3d 40, 58 (Alaska 2023) (quoting Haggblom v. City of Dillingham, 191 P.3d 991, 995 (Alaska 2008)).

2024Faris quotes Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) to support her assertion that the pre-QDRO payment order is void and, therefore, “may be attacked at any time.” Her argument seizes on an incomplete reading of Blaufuss because her quotation omits two key sentences that cut against her argument: “But the rule ‘is not a substitute for a party failing to file a timely appeal; nor does it allow relitigation of issues that have been resolved by the judgment.’ Further, ‘[a] judgment is not void merely because it is erroneous.’ ” Id. at 285-86 (alteration in original) (first quoting Cook

2024The law of the case doctrine does not apply here. 40 In re the 2021 Redistricting Cases, 528 P.3d 40, 58 (Alaska 2023) (quoting Haggblom v. City of Dillingham, 191 P.3d 991, 995 (Alaska 2008)).

2024We use the United States Supreme Court’s test from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976), to analyze due process claims.

2024The doctrine generally “prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated 13 See Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395, 412-13 (Alaska 2016) (“We generally refrain from issuing advisory opinions . . . .”). 14 Faris I, 444 P.3d at 186 . 15 Id.

2024Faris quotes Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) to support her assertion that the pre-QDRO payment order is void and, therefore, “may be attacked at any time.” Her argument seizes on an incomplete reading of Blaufuss because her quotation omits two key sentences that cut against her argument: “But the rule ‘is not a substitute for a party failing to file a timely appeal; nor does it allow relitigation of issues that have been resolved by the judgment.’ Further, ‘[a] judgment is not void merely because it is erroneous.’ ” Id. at 285-86 (alteration in original) (first quoting Cook

2024Faris quotes Blaufuss v. Ball, 305 P.3d 281, 285 (Alaska 2013) to support her assertion that the pre-QDRO payment order is void and, therefore, “may be attacked at any time.” Her argument seizes on an incomplete reading of Blaufuss because her quotation omits two key sentences that cut against her argument: “But the rule ‘is not a substitute for a party failing to file a timely appeal; nor does it allow relitigation of issues that have been resolved by the judgment.’ Further, ‘[a] judgment is not void merely because it is erroneous.’ ” Id. at 285-86 (alteration in original) (first quoting Cook

2022In fact, Kendre did raise a number of arguments — including the law of the case doctrine and arguments based on Mansell — and fails to explain how he was 33 State v. First Nat’l Bank of Anchorage, 660 P.2d 406, 423 (Alaska 1982) (holding court has authority to decide case on unpled legal theory only “when the new theory applies to the transaction in issue, is related to the theories presented by the parties, and is necessary for a proper and just disposition of the case” but court must “take steps to eliminate the prejudice by giving notice that the new theory will be used and affording an opp

2022OCS disagrees, noting that Dapo II “did not decide any substantive issue concerning the assignment.” “The law of the case doctrine is ‘a doctrine of economy and of obedience 18 Keller v. French, 205 P.3d 299, 304 (Alaska 2009) (footnote omitted) (first quoting Ruckle, 85 P.3d at 1040 ; and then quoting Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. v. Kritz, 3 P.3d 906, 915 (Alaska 2000)). 19 Gilbert M. v. State, 139 P.3d 581, 586 (Alaska 2006) (quoting Wagstaff v. Superior Ct., Fam.

2022OCS disagrees, noting that Dapo II “did not decide any substantive issue concerning the assignment.” “The law of the case doctrine is ‘a doctrine of economy and of obedience 18 Keller v. French, 205 P.3d 299, 304 (Alaska 2009) (footnote omitted) (first quoting Ruckle, 85 P.3d at 1040; and then quoting Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. v. Kritz, 3 P.3d 906, 915 (Alaska 2000)). 19 Gilbert M. v. State, 139 P.3d 581, 586 (Alaska 2006) (quoting Wagstaff v. Superior Ct., Fam.

2022“Due process requires ‘notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.’ ”26 Any due process challenge to the 2017 order should have been raised in the earlier appeal but was not; it is therefore waived.27 Donald also notes some 24 See Sawicki v. Haxby, 186 P.3d 546, 549 (Alaska 2008) (concluding that the father “met his prima facie burden by showing that [the mother] voluntarily left [her job] to take a job paying approximately half what she earned before”). 25 Beal, 209 P.3d at 1017 (quoting Carlson, 65 P.3d at 859 ). 26 Bunton v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 482 P.3d 367,