law of the case doctrine in New Jersey

2026The law of the case doctrine "is a discretionary rule that calls on one court 'to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate [court] against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth.'" State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266, 276 (2015) (alteration in original) (quoting A-2885-24 15 Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538-39 (2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he law of the case doctrine 'is only triggered when one court is faced with a ruling on the merits by a different and co-equal court on an identical issue.'" La

2026The law of the case doctrine "is a discretionary rule that calls on one court 'to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate [court] against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth.'" Id. at 276 (alteration in original) (quoting Lombardi v. Masso, A-1341-24 11 207 N.J. 517, 538-39 (2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he law of the case doctrine 'is only triggered when one court is faced with a ruling on the merits by a different and co-equal court on an identical issue.'" Lawson v. Dewar, 468 N.J.

2026"The law-of-the-case doctrine is a non-binding rule intended to prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue in the same case." State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266, 276 (2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2026Whether the court "correctly applied the law-of-the-case doctrine is a matter of law, and therefore our standard of review is de novo." State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266, 276 (2015).

2025"Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, decisions of law made in a case should be respected by all other lower or equal courts during the pendency of that case." Lanzet v. Greenberg, 126 N.J. 168, 192 (1991) (citing State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 203 (1985); State v. Hale, 127 N.J.

2022Ordinarily, the law-of-the-case doctrine "precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher appellate court, in the same case." State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 208 (1985) (O'Hern, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Maybusher, 735 F.2d 366, 370 (9th Cir. 1984)).

2025Finally, the law of the case doctrine directs that "a legal decision made in a particular matter 'should be respected by all other lower or equal courts during the pendency of that case.'" Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538 (2011) (quoting Lanzet v. Greenberg, 126 N.J. 168, 192 (1991)).

2025"Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, decisions of law made in a case should be respected by all other lower or equal courts during the pendency of that case." Lanzet v. Greenberg, 126 N.J. 168, 192 (1991) (citing State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 203 (1985); State v. Hale, 127 N.J.

2026"A hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference" for prior rulings "against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth." Id. at 538-39 (quoting Hart v. City of Jersey City, 308 N.J.

2025The law of the case doctrine is a discretionary, non-binding rule aimed at avoiding "relitigation of a previously A-2187-23 13 resolved issue." Id. at 538 (quoting In re Est. of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 (2008)). "[The] doctrine is only triggered when one [trial] court is faced with a ruling on the merits by a different and co-equal [trial] court on an identical issue." Id. at 539.

2026Because we find that no expert testimony was needed, we do not address plaintiff's contention that the law of the case required the trial court to follow the suppression court's ruling that no expert testimony was needed other than to say: "[A]n order denying summary judgment is not subject to the law of the case doctrine because it decides nothing and merely reserves issues for future disposition." Gonzalez v. Ideal Tile Importing Co., 371 N.J.

2025Thus, "an order denying summary judgment is not subject to the law of the case doctrine because it decides nothing and merely reserves issues A-0250-22 19 for future disposition." Gonzalez v. Ideal Tile Importing Co., Inc., 371 N.J.

2026"A hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference" for prior rulings "against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth." Id. at 538-39 (quoting Hart v. City of Jersey City, 308 N.J.

2025"A hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature[.]" Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538 (2011) (quoting Hart v. City of Jersey City, 308 N.J.

2025The law of the case doctrine generally stands for the proposition that "where there is an unreversed decision of law or fact made during the course of litigation, such decision settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit." State v. Hale, 127 N.J.

2025"Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, decisions of law made in a case should be respected by all other lower or equal courts during the pendency of that case." Lanzet v. Greenberg, 126 N.J. 168, 192 (1991) (citing State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 203 (1985); State v. Hale, 127 N.J.

2026Super. 76, 88 (App. Div. 2014) (holding that the law of the case doctrine does not apply "when 'there is substantially different evidence' from that available at the time of the prior decision" (quoting Sisler v. Gannett Co., 222 N.J.

2021While the law of the case doctrine is a discretionary, non-binding rule, "[p]rior decisions on legal issues should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence at a subsequent trial, new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous." Sisler v. Gannett Co., 222 N.J.

2012“Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, ‘where there is an unreversed decision of a question of law or fact made during the course of litigation, such decision settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit[,]’ ” Bahrle v. Exxon Corp., 279 N.J.Super. 5, 21 , 652 A.2d 178 (App.Div.1995) (quoting Slowinski v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 264 N.J.Super. 172, 179 , 624 A.2d 85 (App.Div.1993)), aff'd, 145 N.J. 144 , 678 A.2d 225 (1996), and the determination “should be respected by all other lower or equal courts during the pendency of that case.” Lanzet v. Greenberg, 126 N.J. 168, 192 , 594 A.2d 1

2012“Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, ‘where there is an unreversed decision of a question of law or fact made during the course of litigation, such decision settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit[,]’ ” Bahrle v. Exxon Corp., 279 N.J.Super. 5, 21 , 652 A.2d 178 (App.Div.1995) (quoting Slowinski v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 264 N.J.Super. 172, 179 , 624 A.2d 85 (App.Div.1993)), aff'd, 145 N.J. 144 , 678 A.2d 225 (1996), and the determination “should be respected by all other lower or equal courts during the pendency of that case.” Lanzet v. Greenberg, 126 N.J. 168, 192 , 594 A.2d 1

2020"The law-of-the-case doctrine 'most commonly applies to the binding nature of appellate decisions upon a trial A-5698-17T2 8 court if the matter is remanded for further proceedings, or upon a different appellate panel which may be asked to reconsider the same issue in a subsequent appeal.'" Brown v. Twp. of Old Bridge, 319 N.J.

2019Under the law of the case doctrine, "decisions of law made in a case should be respected by all other lower or equal courts during the pendency of that case." Brown v. Twp. of Old Bridge, 319 N.J.

2025"Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, 'where there is an unreversed decision of a question of law or fact made during the course of litigation, such decision settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit .'" Bahrle v. Exxon Corp., 279 N.J.

2021We have stated: "Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, 'where there is an unreversed decision of a question of law or fact made during the course of litigation, such decision settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit[,]'" Bahrle A-1712-19 24 v. Exxon Corp., 279 N.J.

2026Pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine, "where there is an unreversed decision of a question of law or fact made during the course of litigation, such decision settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit[.]" Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J.

2025The law of the case doctrine provides that "where there is an unreversed decision of a question of law or fact made during the course of litigation, such decision settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit." Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J.

2017See State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266, 276-78 (2015) (distinguishing between collateral estoppel and law of the case); see also Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 , 539- 40 (2011) (explaining application of the law of the case doctrine in connection with appellate proceedings); State v. Myers, 239 N.J.

2017See State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266, 276-78 (2015) (distinguishing between collateral estoppel and law of the case); see also Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 , 539- 40 (2011) (explaining application of the law of the case doctrine in connection with appellate proceedings); State v. Myers, 239 N.J.

2026For collateral estoppel to preclude litigation, A-0833-24 11 the party asserting the bar must show that: (1) the issue to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the court in the prior proceeding issued a final judgment on the merits; (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment; and (5) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to or in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding. [Winters v. N. Hudson Reg'l Fire and Rescue, 212 N.J. 67, 85 (2012) (q

2018Collateral estoppel prevents future litigation on the issue when: (1) the issue to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the court in the prior proceeding issued a final judgment on the merits; (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment; and (5) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to or in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding. [Winters v. N. Hudson Reg'l Fire & Rescue, 212 N.J. 67, 85 (2012) (quoting Olivieri v. Y.M.F.

2025Our review of the record reveals the law of the case doctrine was not raised before Judge Rivas and thus should not be considered on appeal because it does not "go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest." Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014) (quoting State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009)).

2022With respect to plaintiff's reliance on the law of the case doctrine, the argument was not raised before the motion court and thus should not be considered on appeal because it does not "'go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest.'" Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014) (quoting Nieder v. Royal Indem.

2022See State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266, 275 (2015) (citing State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 203 (1985)); see also Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983) ("[W]hen a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case." (emphasis added)).

2015Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538 , 25 A.3d 1080 (2011) (quoting In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 , 953 A.2d 454 (2008)); see also Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318, 333 (1983) (“[W]hen a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”); Reldan, supra, 100 N.J. at 208 , 495 A.2d 76 (O’Hern, J., dissenting) (“[T]he ‘law of the case’ rule ordinarily precludes a court from re-examining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher appellate c

2021Super. 349, 356 (App. Div. 2004) (holding that "an order denying summary judgment is not subject to the law of the case doctrine because it decides nothing and merely reserves issues for future disposition"), aff'd on other grounds, 184 N.J. 415 (2005); Blunt v. Klapproth, 309 N.J.

2021Super. 349, 356 (App. Div. 2004), aff'd on other grounds, 184 N.J. 415 (2005); see Blunt v. Klapproth, 309 N.J.

2020Under the doctrine of the law of the case, "if an issue . . . has been determined on the merits in a prior appeal it cannot be relitigated in a later appeal of the same case, even if of constitutional dimension." Wash. Commons, LLC v. City of Jersey City, 416 N.J.

2020"Under the doctrine of the law of the case, a party cannot relitigate a previously resolved issue." Washington Commons v. City of Jersey City, 416 N.J.

2019After that, rules of res judicata determine whether a prior A-4952-17T4 12 determination of law or fact is binding."); see also Ayers v. Jackson Twp., 106 N.J. 557, 611-12 (1987) (holding the trial court's decision to "re-examine[] [an] issue" decided in "a related case in the federal district for the District of New Jersey" was "not improper"), aff'g in part and rev'g in part on other grounds, 202 N.J.

1988The purpose of the law of the case doctrine is to avoid relitigation of the same issue "in the same suit." Ayers v. Jackson Tp., 202 N.J.

2021Super. 349, 356 (App. Div. 2004) (holding that "an order denying summary judgment is not subject to the law of the case doctrine because it decides nothing and merely reserves issues for future disposition"), aff'd on other grounds, 184 N.J. 415 (2005); Blunt v. Klapproth, 309 N.J.

2021Super. 349, 356 (App. Div. 2004), aff'd o.b., 184 N.J. 415 (2005), where we held in similar circumstances that the law of the case doctrine does not obligate a court to "slavishly follow an erroneous or uncertain interlocutory ruling." Interlocutory rulings are "not considered 'law of the case'" and are "always subject to reconsideration up until final judgment is entered." Lombardi, 207 N.J. at 539 (citing Johnson, 220 N.J.

2025The law of the case doctrine is a discretionary, non-binding rule aimed at avoiding "relitigation of a previously A-2187-23 13 resolved issue." Id. at 538 (quoting In re Est. of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 (2008)). "[The] doctrine is only triggered when one [trial] court is faced with a ruling on the merits by a different and co-equal [trial] court on an identical issue." Id. at 539.

2021Super. 349, 356 (App. Div. 2004), aff'd o.b., 184 N.J. 415 (2005), where we held in similar circumstances that the law of the case doctrine does not obligate a court to "slavishly follow an erroneous or uncertain interlocutory ruling." Interlocutory rulings are "not considered 'law of the case'" and are "always subject to reconsideration up until final judgment is entered." Lombardi, 207 N.J. at 539 (citing Johnson, 220 N.J.

2018"A hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth." Little v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 425 N.J.

2018"A hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth." *381 *552 Little v. KIA Motors Am., Inc. , 425 N.J.

2017Super. 158, 164 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 127 N.J. 323 (1990); State v. Hale, 127 N.J.

2011See State v. Myers, 239 N.J.Super. 158, 164 , 570 A. 2d 1260 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 127 N.J. 323 , 604 A. 2d 598 (1990).

2019After that, rules of res judicata determine whether a prior A-4952-17T4 12 determination of law or fact is binding."); see also Ayers v. Jackson Twp., 106 N.J. 557, 611-12 (1987) (holding the trial court's decision to "re-examine[] [an] issue" decided in "a related case in the federal district for the District of New Jersey" was "not improper"), aff'g in part and rev'g in part on other grounds, 202 N.J.

1988Super. 106, 128 (App.Div. 1985), mod. on other grounds 106 N.J. 557 (1987).

2018Feldman v. Lederle Labs. , 125 N.J. 117 , 132, 592 A.2d 1176 (1991) ("The law-of-the-case doctrine is a guide for judicial economy based on the sound policy that 'when an issue is once litigated and decided during the course of a case, that decision should be the end of the matter.' " (citation omitted) ).

2018Feldman v. Lederle Labs. , 125 N.J. 117 , 132, 592 A.2d 1176 (1991) ("The law-of-the-case doctrine is a guide for judicial economy based on the sound policy that 'when an issue is once litigated and decided during the course of a case, that decision should be the end of the matter.' " (citation omitted) ).

2018Court Rules, cmt. 4 on R. 1:36-3 (2019) (citing State v. K.P.S., A-0241-17T1 17 221 N.J. 266, 276 (2015)); cf. State v. Cullen, 424 N.J.

2018Court Rules , cmt. 4 on R. 1:36-3 (2019) (citing State v. K.P.S. , 221 N.J. 266 , 276, 112 A.3d 579 (2015) ); cf. State v. Cullen , 424 N.J.