law of the case doctrine in Ohio

2026Matthew and Vincent’s Assignment of Error I. {¶80} In their first assignment of error, Matthew and Vincent contend the trial court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine because the trial court failed to answer the four questions Matthew and Vincent allege this Court ordered [in Alibrando I] the trial court to answer in “deciding whether to implement R.C. 2109.50.” We disagree. {¶81} The law-of-the-case doctrine provides, “the decision of the reviewing court in a case remains the law of the case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and rev

2003In its First Assignment of Error, Capital City maintains the trial court erroneously applied the doctrine of the law of the case 1 because the court of appeals never reviewed the consideration claims raised by Capital City upon remand Capital City contends, in its Second Assignment of Error, the trial court erred when it failed to discern new facts and evidence to establish consideration for an enforceable agreement between Capital City and MAC which Capital City presented upon remand We disagree with both assignments of error. {¶ 17} In Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1 , the Ohio Suprem

2024Case No. 24 JE 0009 –6– {¶21} This Court has previously addressed this issue in Manshadi v. Bleggi, 2021- Ohio-3593, ¶ 10-11 (7th Dist.): The law-of-the-case doctrine has long existed in Ohio jurisprudence and provides that, ‘the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.’” Hopkins v. Dyer, 104 Ohio St.3d 461 , 2004-Ohio- 6769, 820 N.E.2d 329, ¶ 15 , quoting, Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 , 3 432 N.E.2d 410 (1984).

2024Consequently, res judicata did not bar the litigation of the viability of the amended claim for breach of contract on summary judgment. {¶ 45} The law-of-the-case doctrine “ ‘provides that the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.’ ” Hopkins v. Dyer, 104 Ohio St.3d 461 , 2004-Ohio-6769 , ¶ 15, quoting Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 3 (1984).

2023Creed v. Sauline, 74 Ohio St.3d 402, 404 (1996). {¶ 49} The law of the case doctrine is “a rule of practice rather than a binding rule of substantive law and will not be applied so as to achieve unjust results.” Nolan at 3 .

2016Creed v. Sauline, 74 Ohio St.3d 402, 404-405 (1996) (stating that the law of the case doctrine “precludes a litigant from attempting to rely on arguments * * * that were fully pursued, or available to be pursued, in a first appeal.

2026Appellee the Hamilton County Mental Health and Recovery Services Board argues that the probate court correctly recognized that this court previously rejected the precise arguments that J.D. raises in this case. 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS A. Law-of-the-case doctrine governs J.D.’s inherent-authority argument {¶10} Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, “‘“[T]he decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.”’” Giancola v. Azem, 2018-Ohio-1694, ¶ 14 ,

2026Appellee the Hamilton County Mental Health and Recovery Services Board argues that the probate court correctly recognized that this court previously rejected the precise arguments that J.D. raises in this case. 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS A. Law-of-the-case doctrine governs J.D.’s inherent-authority argument {¶10} Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, “‘“[T]he decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.”’” Giancola v. Azem, 2018-Ohio-1694, ¶ 14 ,

2019Bernard , 111 Ohio St. 726 , 730-731, 146 N.E. 291 (1924). {¶ 14} The law-of-the-case doctrine ensures consistency of results in a case, aids in finally settling the issues, and preserves the structure of superior and *422 inferior courts.

2019Bernard , 111 Ohio St. 726 , 730-731, 146 N.E. 291 (1924). {¶ 14} The law-of-the-case doctrine ensures consistency of results in a case, aids in finally settling the issues, and preserves the structure of superior and *422 inferior courts.

2024Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 214 , 218, 690 N.E.2d 515 (1998) (the law-of-the-case doctrine not only precludes re-litigation of matters addressed in a previous appeal but also “precludes a litigant from attempting to rely on new arguments * * * which could have been pursued in a first appeal[.]” (Emphasis added.)) {¶10} The Board could have challenged the inclusion of STRS payments in the joint stipulation on direct appeal in CATA I.

2024Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 214 , 218, 690 N.E.2d 515 (1998) (the law-of-the-case doctrine not only precludes re-litigation of matters addressed in a previous appeal but also “precludes a litigant from attempting to rely on new arguments * * * which could have been pursued in a first appeal[.]” (Emphasis added.)) {¶10} The Board could have challenged the inclusion of STRS payments in the joint stipulation on direct appeal in CATA I.

2023The law-of-the-case doctrine “‘compel[s] trial courts to follow the mandates of reviewing courts[,]’ and trial courts are ‘without authority to extend or vary the mandate given.’” Id., quoting Hawley at 160 .

2022See Hawley v. Ritley, 35 Ohio St.3d 157 , 160- 161 (1988) (affirming the appellate court’s ruling applying the law of the case doctrine, but also concluding that “affirmance of the decision of the court of appeals below by applying the doctrine does not achieve an unjust result”); L.G.

2026The law-of-the-case doctrine is “a rule of practice rather than a binding rule of substantive law [] and we will not apply it to achieve unjust results.” Farmers State Bank v. Sponaugle, 2019-Ohio-2518, ¶ 22 . {¶11} In In re J.D.

2026They also argue that the magistrate “specifically” found that Morgan228 “did not attempt to mitigate the damages.” {¶32} Morgan228 counters that the Miavitzes arguments are barred by the law- of-the-case doctrine, which provides that “legal questions resolved by a reviewing court in a prior appeal remain the law of that case for any subsequent proceedings at both the trial and appellate levels.” Farmers State Bank v. Sponaugle, 2019-Ohio-2518, ¶ 22 .

2023The law of the case doctrine, therefore, mandates a finding that the original sentencing entry was a final, appealable order.” Id. at ¶ 16. {¶ 22} In Bates, we went on to recognize “an exception to the law of the case doctrine applies allowing an appellate court to ‘ “ ‘re-examine the law of the case it has itself previously created, if that is the only means to avoid injustice.’ ” ’ ” (Emphasis sic.) Bates at ¶ 15, quoting Monroe at ¶ 30, quoting Koss v. Kroger Co., 10th Dist. No. 07AP-450, 2008-Ohio-2696, ¶ 19 , quoting Pavlides v. Niles Gun Show, Inc., 112 Ohio App.3d 609, 615 (5th Dist.199

2022See -28- Pavlides, 112 Ohio App.3d at 615 (“An appellate court may choose to re-examine the law of the case it has itself previously created if that is the only means to avoid injustice.”). {¶45} This decision is consonant with the law of the case doctrine in cases where it will not be applied so as to achieve unjust results (emphasis added to the language quoted from Nolan, supra).

2021Creed v. Sauline, 74 Ohio St.3d 402, 404-405 (1996), citing Beifuss v. Westerville Bd. of Edn., 37 Ohio St.3d 187, 191 (1988) and Hawley v. Ritley, 35 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1988).

2020Creed v. Sauline, 74 Ohio St.3d 402, 404-05 (1996), citing Beifuss v. Westerville Bd. of Edn., 37 Ohio St.3d 187, 191 (1988).

2006See Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382 , 653 N.E.2d 226 . {¶ 24} We further hold that the doctrine of the law of the case does not prevent the trial court from applying Galatis to Garvey’s claims. “[T]he doctrine provides that the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.” Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 3 , 11 OBR 1, 462 N.E.2d 410 .

2006See Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382 , 653 N.E.2d 226 . {¶ 24} We further hold that the doctrine of the law of the case does not prevent the trial court from applying Galatis to Garvey’s claims. “[T]he doctrine provides that the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.” Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 3 , 11 OBR 1, 462 N.E.2d 410 .

2026Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (“A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” (Internal quotation omitted)); State v. Kelly, 2007-Ohio-6838, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.) (the law of the case doctrine is discretionary in application, and subject to exceptions, including when “the earlier decision is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest inj

2023Therefore, the court of appeals on remand must determine whether statutory damages are available to Ames under R.C. 149.43(C)(2) for his loss of use of the information in the requested public record. {¶ 43} So while we recognize that the law-of-the-case doctrine is not a limit on a court’s power and does not prevent a court from revisiting a prior decision that is clearly wrong, Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 236 , 117 S.Ct. 1997 , 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997); Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 , 108 S.Ct. 2166 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988), this court’s decision in Am

2024“The law of the case doctrine is rooted in principles of res judicata and issue preclusion.” State v. Harding, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-370, 2011-Ohio- 557, ¶ 16, citing State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , ¶ 35.

2024“The law of the case doctrine is rooted in principles of res judicata and issue preclusion.” State v. Harding, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-370, 2011-Ohio- 557, ¶ 16, citing State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , 942 N.E.2d 332 , ¶ 35.

2025The Myers’ court went on to say, “The doctrine ‘should not be taken to imply that a trial court can never, under any circumstances, reconsider its prior ruling.’ " Id., citing Poluse v. Youngstown, 135 Ohio App.3d 720, 725 (7th Dist. 1999). {¶18} This Court ruled in Myers, “We find that the trial court did not err in failing to apply the law of the case doctrine and was within its discretion to review the facts and evidence submitted at the time of the hearing to determine appellant's income for purposes of child support.” Id., at ¶ 19. {¶19} Vanhorn argues that the trial court “lacked the aut

2023The “law of the case” doctrine includes “a lower court's adherence to its own prior rulings or to the rulings of another judge or court in the same case.” Id., citing Poluse v. City of Youngstown (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 720, 725 , 735 N.E.2d 505 . {¶74} “The issue of whether * * * the law of the case doctrine, applies in a particular situation is a question of law that is reviewed under a de novo standard.” Nationwide Ins.

2026Cordray v. Marshall, 2009-Ohio-4986, ¶ 27-28, 42 , in which it relied upon the law-of-the-case doctrine to hold that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant a posttrial motion that raised the same issues that had previously been rejected on appeal.

2017Cordray v. Marshall, 123 Ohio St.3d 229 , 2009-Ohio-4986 , 915 N.E.2d 633 , the Supreme Court cited Special Prosecutors , but relied on the doctrine of the law of the case to hold that the common pleas court had lacked jurisdiction to grant a postconviction motion pursuant to Crim.R. 57(B) and Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate a judgment of conviction on the ground that the trial court had erred by failing to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense, when that ground had been rejected in affirming defendant's conviction on direct appeal.

2026As aptly stated by the Court of Claims, “the doctrine does not apply when subsequent proceedings involve different facts, legal issues, or different evidentiary standards.” (Apr. 25, 2025 Decision at 10, citing Stemen v. Shibley, 11 Ohio App.3d 263, 266 (6th Dist. 1982) (“the doctrine of the law of the case does not foreclose a party from filing, nor a court from considering, a new motion for summary judgment based upon an expanded record, where a trial court had previously granted that party’s motion for summary judgment which was subsequently reversed on appellate review.”); Johnson v. Morri

2015In contrast, “when subsequent proceedings involve different legal issues or different evidentiary records, the doctrine does not apply.” Johnson v. Morris, 108 Ohio App.3d 343, 349 (4th Dist.1995). {¶10} The law of the case doctrine is not applicable to the issue before the court because the issue here is different from the issue in Basista I.

2026As aptly stated by the Court of Claims, “the doctrine does not apply when subsequent proceedings involve different facts, legal issues, or different evidentiary standards.” (Apr. 25, 2025 Decision at 10, citing Stemen v. Shibley, 11 Ohio App.3d 263, 266 (6th Dist. 1982) (“the doctrine of the law of the case does not foreclose a party from filing, nor a court from considering, a new motion for summary judgment based upon an expanded record, where a trial court had previously granted that party’s motion for summary judgment which was subsequently reversed on appellate review.”); Johnson v. Morri

2016The appellate court must consider the opinion in its entirety, as the “relevant language could appear anywhere in an opinion or order, including a designated paragraph or section, or certain key identifiable language.” United States v. Campbell, 168 F.3d 263, 267 (6th Cir.1999). {¶37} Walton Manor argues on reconsideration that the law of the case doctrine does not apply where, as here, “the evidence was not identical” in the initial and subsequent proceedings, pursuant to Stemen v. Shibley, 11 Ohio App.3d 263, 266 , 465 N.E.2d 460 (6th Dist.1982).

2014The law of the case doctrine "functions to compel trial courts to follow the mandates of reviewing courts." Id.

2014Potain v. Mathews, 59 Ohio St.2d 29, 32 , 391 N.E.2d 343 (1979). {¶13} We find the reasoning set forth in Nolan with respect to the doctrine of the law of the case to be applicable to the matter presently before us.

2026See Reid v. Cleveland Police Dept., 2017-Ohio-7527, ¶ 9, 11 (explaining the law of the case doctrine may not be applied to “force a court in a civil case to adhere to an earlier decision in a criminal case,” because the doctrine applies “only to subsequent proceedings ‘in the same case,’ ” and therefore “does not limit the actions of a court in another case, even if that case has a party in common with the other case”).

2025Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66 (1978). {¶ 38} The law-of-the-case doctrine serves "'to ensure consistency of results in a case, to avoid endless litigation by settling the issues, and to preserve the structure of - 11 - Fayette CA2024-08-021 superior and inferior courts as designed by the Ohio Constitution.'" Reid v. Cleveland Police Dept., 2017-Ohio-7527, ¶ 10 , quoting Hubbard ex rel.

2022“The law-of- the-case doctrine ‘“comes into play only with respect to issues previously determined.”’” Banker’s Choice, L.L.C. v. Cincinnati Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200117, 2021-Ohio-1206, ¶ 16 , quoting Giancola v. Azem, 153 Ohio St.3d 594 , 2018-Ohio-1694, ¶ 16 , quoting Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 347 , 99 S.Ct. 1139 (1979), fn. 18.

2022“The law-of- the-case doctrine ‘“comes into play only with respect to issues previously determined.”’” Banker’s Choice, L.L.C. v. Cincinnati Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200117, 2021-Ohio-1206, ¶ 16 , quoting Giancola v. Azem, 153 Ohio St.3d 594 , 2018-Ohio-1694, ¶ 16 , quoting Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 347 , 99 S.Ct. 1139 (1979), fn. 18.

2026Sharif v. McDonnell, 91 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 (2001), and Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 5 (1984); Potain at 32 . {¶ 31} The mandate rule is a corollary of the law of the case doctrine, which “provides that the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.” Nolan at 3.

2019Sharif v. McDonnell, 91 Ohio St.3d 46 (2001), the Supreme Court explained the law of the case doctrine: "Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as an intervening decision by the Supreme Court, an inferior court has no 2We note that in addition to considering appellant's brief and reply brief, we have also considered his notices of supplemental authority filed March 11, and March 19, 2019 and determine, notwithstanding, there is no cause to remand the merits at issue raised and previously addressed by this court. discretion to disregard the mandate of a superior court in a prior appeal in the

2008The parties or their counsel shall be notified in writing of the fact that an investigation has been made, that a report has been submitted, and that the contents of the report are available for examination.* * * ." 2 The Ohio Supreme Court, in State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175 , 226 N.E.2d 104 , syllabus at ¶ 9, determined, "Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was r

2008The parties or their counsel shall be notified in writing of the fact that an investigation has been made, that a report has been submitted, and that the contents of the report are available for examination.* * * ." 2 The Ohio Supreme Court, in State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175 , 226 N.E.2d 104 , syllabus at ¶ 9, determined, "Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any proceeding except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was r