law of the case prohibits doctrine in Arkansas

25 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Green v. George's Farms, Inc.green ark · 2011 · cited in 7 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2023 2 sentences 2023“The doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from 15 reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided on appeal.” Green v. George’s Farms, Inc., 2011 Ark. 70, at 7 , 378 S.W.3d 715, 720 (internal citations omitted). 2023“The doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from 15 reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided on appeal.” Green v. George’s Farms, Inc., 2011 Ark. 70, at 7 , 378 S.W.3d 715, 720 (internal citations omitted).	2	7
Jones v. Double\ D\" Propertiesgreen · 2004 · cited in 4 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2012 2 sentences 2012Jones v. Double “D” Props., Inc., 357 Ark. 148, 156 , 161 S.W.3d 839, 844 (2004). 2012Jones v. Double “D” Props., Inc., 357 Ark. 148, 156 , 161 S.W.3d 839, 844 (2004).	2	4
Cadillac Cowboy, Inc. v. Jacksongreen ark · 2002 · cited in 9 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2025 2 sentences 2005Turning to the merits of the issue, “the venerable doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided on appeal.” Cadillac Cowboy, Inc. v. Jackson, 347 Ark. 963, 970 , 69 S.W.3d 383, 388 (2002). 2005Turning to the merits of the issue, “the venerable doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided on appeal.” Cadillac Cowboy, Inc. v. Jackson, 347 Ark. 963, 970 , 69 S.W.3d 383, 388 (2002).	1	9
Clinical Study Centers, Inc. v. Boellnergreen ark · 2012 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015Id. 2015Id.	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green ark · 2016 2 sentences 2018Next, with regard to the doctrine of law of the case, in United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 2016 Ark. 397 , 504 S.W.3d 573 , we explained the law-of-the-case doctrine: [T]he doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law or fact that have already been decided on appeal. 2018Next, with regard to the doctrine of law of the case, in United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 2016 Ark. 397 , 504 S.W.3d 573 , we explained the law-of-the-case doctrine: [T]he doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law or fact that have already been decided on appeal.	2	2017–2018
Smith v. Commercial Metals Co. green arkctapp · 2011 2 sentences 2013App. 218 , 382 S.W.3d 764 . 10 The doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided on appeal. 2013App. 218 , 382 S.W.3d 764 . 10 The doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided on appeal.	2	2013–2013
Byme, Inc. v. Ivy green ark · 2006 2 sentences 2008State Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 371 Ark. 584 , 269 S.W.3d 359 (2007) (explaining that a party is precluded from relitigating an issue that has already been decided); Byme, Inc. v. Ivy, 367 Ark. 451 , 241 S.W.3d 229 (2006) (explaining that the doctrine of the law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided in a prior appeal). 2008State Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 371 Ark. 584 , 269 S.W.3d 359 (2007) (explaining that a party is precluded from relitigating an issue that has already been decided); Byme, Inc. v. Ivy, 367 Ark. 451 , 241 S.W.3d 229 (2006) (explaining that the doctrine of the law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided in a prior appeal).	2	2008–2008
Rogers v. Rogers green arkctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2018First, the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply. "[T]he venerable doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided on appeal." Rogers v. Rogers , 90 Ark. 2018App. 321 , 328, 205 S.W.3d 856 , 862 (2005) (citing Cadillac Cowboy, Inc. v. Jackson , 347 Ark. 963 , 970, 69 S.W.3d 383 , 388 (2002) ).	1	2018–2018
Duit Construction Co v. Arkansas State Claims Commission neutral ark · 2015 1 sentence 2015The doctrine provides that a decision of an appellate court establishes the law of the case for the trial upon remand and for 11 Cite as 2015 Ark. 462 the appellate court itself upon subsequent review.	1	2015–2015
McWhorter v. McWhorter green ark · 2009 2 sentences 2010McWhorter v. McWhorter, 2009 Ark. 458 , 344 S.W.3d 64 ; Jones v. Double “D” Props., 357 Ark. 148 , 161 S.W.3d 839 (2004). 2010McWhorter v. McWhorter, 2009 Ark. 458 , 344 S.W.3d 64 ; Jones v. Double “D” Props., 357 Ark. 148 , 161 S.W.3d 839 (2004).	1	2010–2010
Linder v. Linder green ark · 2002 2 sentences 2010Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 , 72 S.W.3d 841 (2002). 2010Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 , 72 S.W.3d 841 (2002).	1	2010–2010
Redden v. Arkansas State Board of Law Examiners green ark · 2007 2 sentences 2008State Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 371 Ark. 584 , 269 S.W.3d 359 (2007) (explaining that a party is precluded from relitigating an issue that has already been decided); Byme, Inc. v. Ivy, 367 Ark. 451 , 241 S.W.3d 229 (2006) (explaining that the doctrine of the law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided in a prior appeal). 2008State Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 371 Ark. 584 , 269 S.W.3d 359 (2007) (explaining that a party is precluded from relitigating an issue that has already been decided); Byme, Inc. v. Ivy, 367 Ark. 451 , 241 S.W.3d 229 (2006) (explaining that the doctrine of the law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided in a prior appeal).	1	2008–2008
Lotz v. Cromer green ark · 1994 2 sentences 2004In Lotz v. Cromer, 317 Ark. 250, 253 , 878 S.W.2d 367 (1994), this court correctly stated that "[i]n fashioning a remedy, a Chancellor has broad power, limited only to the extent that the remedy must be reasonable and justified by the proof." Law of the Case In Cadillac Cowboy, Inc. v. Jackson, 347 Ark. 963 , 69 S.W.3d 383 (2002), this court discussed law of the case and stated: The venerable doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided on appeal. 2004In Lotz v. Cromer, 317 Ark. 250, 253 , 878 S.W.2d 367 (1994), this court correctly stated that "[i]n fashioning a remedy, a Chancellor has broad power, limited only to the extent that the remedy must be reasonable and justified by the proof." Law of the Case In Cadillac Cowboy, Inc. v. Jackson, 347 Ark. 963 , 69 S.W.3d 383 (2002), this court discussed law of the case and stated: The venerable doctrine of law of the case prohibits a court from reconsidering issues of law and fact that have already been decided on appeal.	1	2004–2004

Where else courts name it

AR 25 (2004–2025) AK 8 (1977–2007) SC 4 (2015–2017) NV 2 (2021–2021)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check