mandate rule in North Dakota

2022Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Behm, 2020 ND 234, ¶ 8 , 951 N.W.2d 208 .

2021Co. v. Behm, 2020 ND 234, ¶ 8 , 951 N.W.2d 208 (quoting Dale Expl., LLC v. Hiepler, 2020 ND 140 , ¶ 13, 945 N.W.2d 306 ). [¶10] The mandate rule is a more specific application of the law of the case doctrine.

2013We conclude the court erred in summarily dismissing Coppage’s evidentiary, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. 2011 ND 227 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-19, 807 N.W.2d 585 . [¶23] The law-of-the-case doctrine is “‘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.’” St

2013We conclude the court erred in summarily dismissing Coppage’s evidentiary, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. 2011 ND 227 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-19, 807 N.W.2d 585 . [¶ 23] The law-of-the-case doctrine is “ ‘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.’ ”

2013We conclude the court erred in summarily dismissing Coppage’s evidentiary, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. 2011 ND 227 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-19, 807 N.W.2d 585 . [¶23] The law-of-the-case doctrine is “‘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.’” St

2013We conclude the court erred in summarily dismissing Coppage’s evidentiary, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. 2011 ND 227 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-19, 807 N.W.2d 585 . [¶ 23] The law-of-the-case doctrine is “ ‘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.’ ”

2012“The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the [appellate court’s] mandate into effect according to its terms.... and we retain the authority to decide whether the district court scrupulously and fully carried out our mandate’s terms.” Burckhard , at ¶ 7 (quotations and citations omitted). [¶ 17] In Carlson I, we held GMR had failed to file a timely and sufficient request for reconsideration under N.D.C.C. § 65-01-16(4), and therefor

2012“The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the [appellate court’s] mandate into effect according to its terms.... and we retain the authority to decide whether the district court scrupulously and fully carried out our mandate’s terms.” Burckhard , at ¶ 7 (quotations and citations omitted). [¶ 17] In Carlson I, we held GMR had failed to file a timely and sufficient request for reconsideration under N.D.C.C. § 65-01-16(4), and therefor

2026The district court erred when it did not apply the statutory default winding up provisions.” Ziemann I, 2024 ND 166 , ¶ 25.

2026II [¶7] “On remand, the district court must follow directions from this Court.” Roth v. Meyer, 2025 ND 116 , ¶ 12, 23 N.W.3d 131 “The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the appellate court’s mandate into effect according to its terms.” Id. (quoting Walstad v. Walstad, 2013 ND 176, ¶ 9 , 837 N.W.2d 911 ). “[This 3 Court] retain[s] authority to decide whether the court fully carried out our mandate’s terms.” Id. [¶8] This Court conc

2024Co. v. Herzig, 2013 ND 13 , ¶ 13, 826 N.W.2d 310 (holding the district court failed to follow the mandate rule when it decided certain sanctions abated because they were coercive rather than addressing what portion of the sanctions were compensatory as this Court instructed). [¶6] We are mindful that our cases permit a district court, as a general proposition and unless we say otherwise, to hold further hearings or accept further evidence.

2024Co. v. Herzig, 2013 ND 13 , ¶ 13, 826 N.W.2d 310 (holding the district court failed to follow the mandate rule when it decided certain sanctions abated because they were coercive rather than addressing what portion of the sanctions were compensatory as this Court instructed). [¶6] We are mindful that our cases permit a district court, as a general proposition and unless we say otherwise, to hold further hearings or accept further evidence.

2024This Court retains the authority to decide whether the district court scrupulously and fully carried out the mandate’s terms.” Pennington v. Continental Res., Inc., 2021 ND 105, ¶¶ 9-10 , 961 N.W.2d 264 (cleaned up).

2022Id. [¶11] In Baker III, this Court reversed the district court’s judgment concluding the contracts at issue did not comply with RISA’s disclosure requirements. 2019 ND 82 , ¶¶ 19-20.

2021Continental contends the judgment should be affirmed because these issues were not properly before the district court, the issues exceeded the scope of this Court’s mandate in the prior appeal, and the district court properly adhered to the law of the case doctrine and mandate rule on remand. [¶9] “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a valid, existing final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive on the parties . . . in all other actions with regard to the issues raised, or those that could have been raised, and determined therein.” Glass v. Glass, 2018 ND 14, ¶ 5 , 906 N

2020Baatz v. State, 2014 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 849 N.W.2d 225 ; Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 10 , 786 N.W.2d 702 ; see State v. Baltrusch, 2019 ND 259, ¶ 6 , 934 N.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 801 N.W.2d 429 (citing State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10 , 727 N.W.2d 769 ); see also State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d 523 (applying the mandate rule). [¶6] In his first appeal, Lyon did not argue insufficiency of the evidence; he only argued that he received an illegal sentence.

2020Baatz v. State, 2014 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 849 N.W.2d 225 ; Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 10 , 786 N.W.2d 702 ; see State v. Baltrusch, 2019 ND 259, ¶ 6 , 934 N.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 801 N.W.2d 429 (citing State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10 , 727 N.W.2d 769 ); see also State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d 523 (applying the mandate rule). [¶6] In his first appeal, Lyon did not argue insufficiency of the evidence; he only argued that he received an illegal sentence.

2020Baatz v. State, 2014 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 849 N.W.2d 225 ; Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 10 , 786 N.W.2d 702 ; see State v. Baltrusch, 2019 ND 259, ¶ 6 , 934 N.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 801 N.W.2d 429 (citing State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10 , 727 N.W.2d 769 ); see also State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d 523 (applying the mandate rule). [¶6] In his first appeal, Lyon did not argue insufficiency of the evidence; he only argued that he received an illegal sentence.

2020Baatz v. State, 2014 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 849 N.W.2d 225 ; Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 10 , 786 N.W.2d 702 ; see State v. Baltrusch, 2019 ND 259, ¶ 6 , 934 N.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 801 N.W.2d 429 (citing State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10 , 727 N.W.2d 769 ); see also State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d 523 (applying the mandate rule). [¶6] In his first appeal, Lyon did not argue insufficiency of the evidence; he only argued that he received an illegal sentence.

2020Baatz v. State, 2014 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 849 N.W.2d 225 ; Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 10 , 786 N.W.2d 702 ; see State v. Baltrusch, 2019 ND 259, ¶ 6 , 934 N.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 801 N.W.2d 429 (citing State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10 , 727 N.W.2d 769 ); see also State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d 523 (applying the mandate rule). [¶6] In his first appeal, Lyon did not argue insufficiency of the evidence; he only argued that he received an illegal sentence.

2020Baatz v. State, 2014 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 849 N.W.2d 225 ; Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 10 , 786 N.W.2d 702 ; see State v. Baltrusch, 2019 ND 259, ¶ 6 , 934 N.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 801 N.W.2d 429 (citing State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10 , 727 N.W.2d 769 ); see also State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d 523 (applying the mandate rule). [¶6] In his first appeal, Lyon did not argue insufficiency of the evidence; he only argued that he received an illegal sentence.

2020Baatz v. State, 2014 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 849 N.W.2d 225 ; Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 10 , 786 N.W.2d 702 ; see State v. Baltrusch, 2019 ND 259, ¶ 6 , 934 N.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 801 N.W.2d 429 (citing State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10 , 727 N.W.2d 769 ); see also State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d 523 (applying the mandate rule). [¶6] In his first appeal, Lyon did not argue insufficiency of the evidence; he only argued that he received an illegal sentence.

2020Baatz v. State, 2014 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 849 N.W.2d 225 ; Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 10 , 786 N.W.2d 702 ; see State v. Baltrusch, 2019 ND 259, ¶ 6 , 934 N.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 801 N.W.2d 429 (citing State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10 , 727 N.W.2d 769 ); see also State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d 523 (applying the mandate rule). [¶6] In his first appeal, Lyon did not argue insufficiency of the evidence; he only argued that he received an illegal sentence.

2019The request for costs and attorney fees came too late, and the court's award exceeded the scope of our mandate "to rule on items 'c' through 'g' in Johnston's petition." Sorenson I , 2018 ND 183 , ¶ 14, 915 N.W.2d 664 . [¶13] We conclude the award of costs and attorney fees violated the mandate rule, and we reverse the award.

2019The request for costs and attorney fees came too late, and the court's award exceeded the scope of our mandate "to rule on items 'c' through 'g' in Johnston's petition." Sorenson I , 2018 ND 183 , ¶ 14, 915 N.W.2d 664 . [¶13] We conclude the award of costs and attorney fees violated the mandate rule, and we reverse the award.

2015The judgment is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with Law v. Whittet, 2014 ND 69 , 844 N.W.2d 885 .

2015The judgment is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with Law v. Whittet, 2014 ND 69 , 844 N.W.2d 885 .