law of the case rule in Georgia

2026“It is well established that any issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court and that the law of the case doctrine is not confined to civil cases, but applies also to rulings made by appellate courts in criminal cases.” Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 ( 713 SE2d 438 ) (2011) (citation modified).

2026“It is well established that any issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court and that the law of the case doctrine is not confined to civil cases, but applies also to rulings made by appellate courts in criminal cases.” Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 ( 713 SE2d 438 ) (2011) (citation modified).

2026See Martin v. State, 369 Ga. App. 193 , 196 (2) ( 892 SE2d 826 ) (2023) (in construing motions, we consider the substance of the motion rather than its nomenclature). the merits of the claim in the prior case); see also Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (“Although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, this important legal principle is, nevertheless, subject to the equally well established principles of res judicata and the law-of-the-case rule once the issue has been raised and ruled upon.” (punctuation omitted)).

2026See Martin v. State, 369 Ga. App. 193 , 196 (2) ( 892 SE2d 826 ) (2023) (in construing motions, we consider the substance of the motion rather than its nomenclature). the merits of the claim in the prior case); see also Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (“Although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, this important legal principle is, nevertheless, subject to the equally well established principles of res judicata and the law-of-the-case rule once the issue has been raised and ruled upon.” (punctuation omitted)).

2022See also Roulain v. Martin, 266 Ga. 353, 354 (466 SE2d 837) (1996) (noting that, under the law of the case doctrine, the habeas court was bound by a prior ruling on direct appeal “regardless of whether that ruling may be erroneous”).

2022See also Roulain v. Martin, 266 Ga. 353, 354 (466 SE2d 837) (1996) (noting that, under the law of the case doctrine, the habeas court was bound by a prior ruling on direct appeal “regardless of whether that ruling may be erroneous”).

2026See Hicks, 289 Ga. at 579 (2) (explaining that a court errs by expanding the law-of-the-case rule to encompass implied rulings); Morrison v. Morrison, 299 Ga. App. 758, 760 (1) ( 683 SE2d 696 ) (2009) (noting that the law-of-the- case rule “encompasses only . . . explicit holdings.”); Parks v. State Farm Gen.

2026Hicks, 289 Ga. at 579 (2) (explaining that a court errs by expanding the law-of-the-case rule to encompass implied rulings); Morrison v. Morrison, 299 Ga. App. 758, 760 (1) ( 683 SE2d 696 ) (2009) (noting that the 7 law-of-the-case rule “encompasses only . . . explicit holdings”); Parks v. State Farm Gen.

2025See Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, such a challenge is nevertheless subject to the equally well-established principles of res judicata and the law-of-the-case rule); compare Howard v. State, 289 Ga. 207 (1) ( 710 SE2d 761 ) (2011).

2025See Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, such a challenge is nevertheless subject to the equally well-established principles of res judicata and the law-of-the-case rule); compare Howard v. State, 289 Ga. 207 (1) ( 710 SE2d 761 ) (2011).

2026We have already considered the validity of Redden’s sentence, and he “is not entitled to multiple bites at the apple.” Ross, 310 Ga. App. at 328 ; see also Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (“Although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, this important legal principle is, nevertheless, subject to the equally well established principles of res judicata and the law-of-the-case rule once the issue has been raised and ruled upon.”) (punctuation omitted); Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 ( 534 SE2d 464 ) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue can

2024Holton “is not entitled to multiple bites at the apple.” Id. at 328 ; see also Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (“Although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, this important legal principle is, nevertheless, subject to the equally well established principles of res judicata and the law-of-the-case rule once the issue has been raised and ruled upon.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 ( 534 SE2d 464 ) (2000) (the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum; our determination in an earlier appeal is res judicat

2019Co., 335 Ga. App. 331 , 339 n.50 ( 779 SE2d 465 ) (2015) citing Bruce v. Garges, 259 Ga. 268, 270 (2) ( 379 SE2d 783 ) (1989) (holding that the law-of-the-case rule applied because “the same parties and issues are involved and the evidentiary posture of the case remains the same”); IH Riverdale, LLC v. McChesney Capital Partners, LLC, 292 Ga. App. 841, 844 ( 666 SE2d 8 ) (2008) (holding that the prior ruling of this Court was law of the case because, inter alia, the arguments and evidence presented in the current and previous appeals were similar); Davis v. Silvers, 295 Ga. App. 103, 105-106 ,

2019Co., 335 Ga. App. 331 , 339 n.50 ( 779 SE2d 465 ) (2015) citing Bruce v. Garges, 259 Ga. 268, 270 (2) ( 379 SE2d 783 ) (1989) (holding that the law-of-the-case rule applied because “the same parties and issues are involved and the evidentiary posture of the case remains the same”); IH Riverdale, LLC v. McChesney Capital Partners, LLC, 292 Ga. App. 841, 844 ( 666 SE2d 8 ) (2008) (holding that the prior ruling of this Court was law of the case because, inter alia, the arguments and evidence presented in the current and previous appeals were similar); Davis v. Silvers, 295 Ga. App. 103, 105-106 ,

2019See also Brown v. Piggly Wiggly Southern, Inc., 228 Ga. App. 629, 629 (1) ( 493 SE2d 196 ) (1997) (“The law of the case rule has formally been abolished except as it applies to rulings by one of the 18 appellate courts; they are binding in all subsequent proceedings.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 5.

2019See also Brown v. Piggly Wiggly Southern, Inc., 228 Ga. App. 629, 629 (1) ( 493 SE2d 196 ) (1997) (“The law of the case rule has formally been abolished except as it applies to rulings by one of the 18 appellate courts; they are binding in all subsequent proceedings.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 5.

2007Compare Modern Roofing & Metal Works, 174 Ga. App. at 876 (1) (the law of the case rule did not apply to new factual assertions raised in amended complaint on remand, when the new assertions alleged “an entirely new basis for *394 tolling the statutes of limitation” than was litigated in prior appeal involving different defendant). (b) JHHJR.

1997“Thus, if subsequent to an appellate decision, the evidentiary posture of the case changes in the trial court, the law of the case rule does not limit or negate the effect that such change would otherwise mandate.” (Emphasis supplied.) Modern Roofing &c. v. Owen, 174 Ga. App. 875, 876 (1) ( 332 SE2d 14 ) (1985).

2024The two are often present in 5 (quoting Moon, 287 Ga. at 304).

2024See OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) (“[A]ny ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings 5 (2023) (quoting Moon, 287 Ga. at 304 ).

2024See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 ( 713 SE2d 438 ) (2011) (“[A]ny issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court . . . .”) (citation and punctuation omitted); accord Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) ( 649 SE2d 313 ) (2007) (a ruling on an application for discretionary review acts as res judicata in later proceedings); see also Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320, 320 ( 540 SE2d 612 ) (2001) (a defendant “is not entitled to another bite at the apple by way of a second appeal”).

2024See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 ( 713 SE2d 438 ) (2011) (“[A]ny issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court . . . .”) (citation and punctuation omitted); accord Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) ( 649 SE2d 313 ) (2007) (a ruling on an application for discretionary review acts as res judicata in later proceedings); see also Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320, 320 ( 540 SE2d 612 ) (2001) (a defendant “is not entitled to another bite at the apple by way of a second appeal”).

1998Nonetheless, this Court reaffirmed the law of the case rule, relying on four Supreme Court cases including Southern Bell Tel., etc., Co. v. Glawson, 140 Ga. 507 , 79 S.E. 136 (1913), [4] and found that the trial court and appellate courts are bound by the earlier ruling in the case before it. "`The principle in the decision may be reviewed and overruled in another case between different parties, but as between the parties the decision stands as the law of the case, even though the ruling has been disapproved ... before the second appearance of the case in that court.' [Cits.]" Navistar, supra;

1998Nonetheless, this Court reaffirmed the law of the case rule, relying on four Supreme Court cases including Southern Bell Tel., etc., Co. v. Glawson, 140 Ga. 507 , 79 S.E. 136 (1913), [4] and found that the trial court and appellate courts are bound by the earlier ruling in the case before it. "`The principle in the decision may be reviewed and overruled in another case between different parties, but as between the parties the decision stands as the law of the case, even though the ruling has been disapproved ... before the second appearance of the case in that court.' [Cits.]" Navistar, supra;

2019Co., 335 Ga. App. 331 , 339 n.50 ( 779 SE2d 465 ) (2015) citing Bruce v. Garges, 259 Ga. 268, 270 (2) ( 379 SE2d 783 ) (1989) (holding that the law-of-the-case rule applied because “the same parties and issues are involved and the evidentiary posture of the case remains the same”); IH Riverdale, LLC v. McChesney Capital Partners, LLC, 292 Ga. App. 841, 844 ( 666 SE2d 8 ) (2008) (holding that the prior ruling of this Court was law of the case because, inter alia, the arguments and evidence presented in the current and previous appeals were similar); Davis v. Silvers, 295 Ga. App. 103, 105-106 ,

2019Co., 335 Ga. App. 331 , 339 n.50 ( 779 SE2d 465 ) (2015) citing Bruce v. Garges, 259 Ga. 268, 270 (2) ( 379 SE2d 783 ) (1989) (holding that the law-of-the-case rule applied because “the same parties and issues are involved and the evidentiary posture of the case remains the same”); IH Riverdale, LLC v. McChesney Capital Partners, LLC, 292 Ga. App. 841, 844 ( 666 SE2d 8 ) (2008) (holding that the prior ruling of this Court was law of the case because, inter alia, the arguments and evidence presented in the current and previous appeals were similar); Davis v. Silvers, 295 Ga. App. 103, 105-106 ,

2019Co. v. Clark , 273 Ga. 44 , 46 (1), 535 S.E.2d 234 (2000) ; OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) (setting forth the law of the case rule for rulings by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals). 10 The Browns' motion for tender provided: Whereas, a current dispute between the parties exists in relation to [the Browns'] loans, and in an effort to demonstrate [the Browns'] intentions to comply with their financial obligations, [the Browns], in good faith, request that this Court enter an order authorizing [the Browns] to tender into the registry of the Court the total amount [the Browns] owe from May 2015 until

2019Co. v. Clark , 273 Ga. 44 , 46 (1), 535 S.E.2d 234 (2000) ; OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) (setting forth the law of the case rule for rulings by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals). 10 The Browns' motion for tender provided: Whereas, a current dispute between the parties exists in relation to [the Browns'] loans, and in an effort to demonstrate [the Browns'] intentions to comply with their financial obligations, [the Browns], in good faith, request that this Court enter an order authorizing [the Browns] to tender into the registry of the Court the total amount [the Browns] owe from May 2015 until

2016See OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) (‘‘[A]ny ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall he binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case maybe.”); Pierce v. State, 278 Ga. App. 162, 163 (1) ( 628 SE2d 235 ) (2006) (“This law of the case rule is not confined to civil cases, hut applies also to rulings made by appellate courts in criminal cases.”) (citation omitted).

2016See OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) (‘‘[A]ny ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall he binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case maybe.”); Pierce v. State, 278 Ga. App. 162, 163 (1) ( 628 SE2d 235 ) (2006) (“This law of the case rule is not confined to civil cases, hut applies also to rulings made by appellate courts in criminal cases.”) (citation omitted).

2025See Harper, 286 Ga. at 217 (1) n.1; Burg, 297 Ga. App. at 119 ; see also Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 ( 713 SE2d 438 ) (2011) (“[A]ny issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court . . . .”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2025See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 (1), n.1 ( 686 SE2d 786 ) (2009); Burg, 297 Ga. App. at 119 .

2024See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 328 ( 713 SE2d 438 ) (2011) (holding that the law- of-the case rule bars multiple void-sentence claims once the sentence has been affirmed); Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) ( 649 SE2d 313 ) (2007) (noting that when an appellate court has upheld a trial court order, the doctrine of res judicata prohibits further challenges to the same order).

2024See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 328 ( 713 SE2d 438 ) (2011) (holding that the law- of-the case rule bars multiple void-sentence claims once the sentence has been affirmed); Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) ( 649 SE2d 313 ) (2007) (noting that when an appellate court has upheld a trial court order, the doctrine of res judicata prohibits further challenges to the same order).

2022See 21 Currid v. DeKalb State Court Probation Dept., 285 Ga. 184, 186 n.5 (674 SE2d 894) (2009) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine applies only to issues expressly ruled on previously, not an “implied” ruling on an issue not addressed in the previous decision); Woodrum v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut.

2022See 21 Currid v. DeKalb State Court Probation Dept., 285 Ga. 184, 186 n.5 (674 SE2d 894) (2009) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine applies only to issues expressly ruled on previously, not an “implied” ruling on an issue not addressed in the previous decision); Woodrum v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut.

2014See also OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) (“[A]ny ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case maybe.”); see generally State v. Lejeune, 277 Ga. 749, 756 (3) (B) ( 594 SE2d 637 ) (2004) (The law-of-the-case doctrine applies only when the same issue has been actually litigated and decided.).

2014See also OCGA § 9-11-60 (h) (“[A]ny ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case maybe.”); see generally State v. Lejeune, 277 Ga. 749, 756 (3) (B) ( 594 SE2d 637 ) (2004) (The law-of-the-case doctrine applies only when the same issue has been actually litigated and decided.).

2026We have already considered the validity of Redden’s sentence, and he “is not entitled to multiple bites at the apple.” Ross, 310 Ga. App. at 328 ; see also Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (“Although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, this important legal principle is, nevertheless, subject to the equally well established principles of res judicata and the law-of-the-case rule once the issue has been raised and ruled upon.”) (punctuation omitted); Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 ( 534 SE2d 464 ) (2000) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue can

2024Holton “is not entitled to multiple bites at the apple.” Id. at 328 ; see also Paradise v. State, 321 Ga. App. 371, 373 ( 740 SE2d 238 ) (2013) (“Although a void sentence may be challenged at any time, this important legal principle is, nevertheless, subject to the equally well established principles of res judicata and the law-of-the-case rule once the issue has been raised and ruled upon.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 ( 534 SE2d 464 ) (2000) (the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum; our determination in an earlier appeal is res judicat

2021As we have repeatedly explained to Bryant, he is not entitled to litigate the same issue ad infinitum.1 See Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 ( 534 SE2d 464 ) (2000); see also Williams v. State, 335 Ga. App. 468, 469 (1) ( 781 SE2d 791 ) (2016) (the dismissal of a prior appeal acts as res judicata); Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 ( 713 SE2d 438 ) (2011) (dismissal of prior appeal precludes subsequent appellate review under the law of the case rule).

2021As we have repeatedly explained to Bryant, he is not entitled to litigate the same issue ad infinitum.1 See Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 ( 534 SE2d 464 ) (2000); see also Williams v. State, 335 Ga. App. 468, 469 (1) ( 781 SE2d 791 ) (2016) (the dismissal of a prior appeal acts as res judicata); Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 ( 713 SE2d 438 ) (2011) (dismissal of prior appeal precludes subsequent appellate review under the law of the case rule).

2023See Guthrie v. Wickes, 295 Ga. App. 892, 895 (3) ( 673 SE2d 523 ) (2009) (“if subsequent to an appellate decision, the evidentiary posture of the case changes in the trial court, the law of the case rule does not limit or negate the effect that such change would otherwise mandate”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2023See Guthrie v. Wickes, 295 Ga. App. 892, 895 (3) ( 673 SE2d 523 ) (2009) (“if subsequent to an appellate decision, the evidentiary posture of the case changes in the trial court, the law of the case rule does not limit or negate the effect that such change would otherwise mandate”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2022The Supreme Court implicitly left that issue for our determination when it remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with its opinion without addressing the issue. 11 Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case may be.”). “[T]he law of the case doctrine applies only when the same issue has been actually litigated and decided.” State v. Mizell, 288 Ga. 474, 478 (3) ( 705 SE2d 154 ) (2010); accord Hicks v. McGee, 289 Ga. 573, 578-579 ( 713 SE2d 841 ) (2011) (the

2022The Supreme Court implicitly left that issue for our determination when it remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with its opinion without addressing the issue. 11 Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case may be.”). “[T]he law of the case doctrine applies only when the same issue has been actually litigated and decided.” State v. Mizell, 288 Ga. 474, 478 (3) ( 705 SE2d 154 ) (2010); accord Hicks v. McGee, 289 Ga. 573, 578-579 ( 713 SE2d 841 ) (2011) (the

2012See also Foster v. State, 290 Ga. 599 (3) ( 723 SE2d 663 ) (2012) (addressing the law of the case rule in a criminal case).

2012See also Foster v. State, 290 Ga. 599 (3) ( 723 SE2d 663 ) (2012) (addressing the law of the case rule in a criminal case).

1997Brown contends that the law of the case rule precluded the trial court from granting Piggly Wiggly’s amended motion for summary judgment. “[T]he law of the case rule has formally been abolished except as it applies to rulings by one of the appellate courts; they are binding in all subsequent proceedings.” Continental Corp. v. Dept. of Transp., 185 Ga. App. 792, 793 (1) ( 366 SE2d 160 ) (1988).

1997Brown contends that the law of the case rule precluded the trial court from granting Piggly Wiggly’s amended motion for summary judgment. “[T]he law of the case rule has formally been abolished except as it applies to rulings by one of the appellate courts; they are binding in all subsequent proceedings.” Continental Corp. v. Dept. of Transp., 185 Ga. App. 792, 793 (1) ( 366 SE2d 160 ) (1988).

2022“It is well-established that the law of the case doctrine applies to holdings by appellate courts in criminal cases.” Hollmon v. State, 305 Ga. 90, 90-91 (1) (823 SE2d 771) (2019).

2022“It is well-established that the law of the case doctrine applies to holdings by appellate courts in criminal cases.” Hollmon v. State, 305 Ga. 90, 90-91 (1) (823 SE2d 771) (2019).

1999The law of the case rule, though formally abolished, still applies to rulings by . . . our appellate courts in a particular case.” (Punctuation omitted.) Lowman v. Advanced Drainage Systems, 228 Ga. App. 182, 183 ( 491 SE2d 427 ) (1997).

1999The law of the case rule, though formally abolished, still applies to rulings by . . . our appellate courts in a particular case.” (Punctuation omitted.) Lowman v. Advanced Drainage Systems, 228 Ga. App. 182, 183 ( 491 SE2d 427 ) (1997).

2026Furthermore, to the extent Redden seeks to raise any challenge to the validity of his conviction, a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly void judgment of conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case.” Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 ( 690 SE2d 150 ) (2010).

2026Furthermore, to the extent Redden seeks to raise any challenge to the validity of his conviction, a motion seeking to challenge an allegedly void judgment of conviction “is not one of the established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case.” Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 ( 690 SE2d 150 ) (2010).

1990The [ Tibbs ] decision, [which I consider to be] wrong, being the law of the case, binds this court in the instant appeal. [Cit.] `While the holding in [ Tibbs ] on its previous appearance before this court may be reviewed and overruled [by this court] in another case, as between these parties it must stand. [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Redmond v. Blau, 153 Ga. App. 395, 396 ( 265 SE2d 329 ) (1980).

1990The [ Tibbs ] decision, [which I consider to be] wrong, being the law of the case, binds this court in the instant appeal. [Cit.] `While the holding in [ Tibbs ] on its previous appearance before this court may be reviewed and overruled [by this court] in another case, as between these parties it must stand. [Cit.]' [Cit.]" Redmond v. Blau, 153 Ga. App. 395, 396 ( 265 SE2d 329 ) (1980).