law of the case doctrine in Tennessee

2025As this Court has previously explained: “The law of the case doctrine ‘generally prohibits reconsideration of issues that have already been decided in a prior appeal of the same case.”” In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 495 S.W.3d 257, 266 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Tenn. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tenn. 1998)).

2025On direct appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court denied relief, quoting with approval this court’s prior ruling on the issue: The State asserts that [Petitioner’s] claims are barred by the law of the case doctrine. “[U]nder the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court’s decision on an issue of law is binding in later trials and appeals of the same case if the facts on the second trial or appeal are substantially the same as the facts in the first trial or appeal.” Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Tenn. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tenn. 1998).

2024Vandenburg, 2019 WL 3720892 , at *80; see State v. Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d 558, 560-61 (Tenn. 2000) (holding that pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court’s decision on an issue of law is binding in later trials and appeals of the same case if the facts on the second trial or appeal are substantially the same - 17 - as the facts in the first trial or appeal).

2022The law of the case doctrine “typically precludes the reconsideration of issues already decided in prior appeals of the same case.” State v. Hall, 461 S.W.3d 469, 500 (Tenn. 2015) (citing State v. Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tenn. 2000)). “[U]nder the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court’s decision on an issue of law is binding in later trials and appeals of the same case if the facts on the second trial or appeal are substantially the same as the facts in the first trial or appeal.” Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d at 560 - 61 (quoting Memphis Publg.

2019“Under the doctrine of the law of the case, when an initial appeal results in a remand to the trial court, the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case, which must be followed upon remand by the trial court and by an appellate court on a second appeal.” State v. Carter, 114 S.W.3d 895, 902 (Tenn. 2003) (citing State v. Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tenn. 2000) (internal citations omitted).

2019“Under the doctrine of the law of the case, when an initial appeal results in a remand to the trial court, the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case, which must be followed upon remand by the trial court and by an appellate court on a second appeal.” State v. Carter, 114 S.W.3d 895, 902 (Tenn. 2003) (citing State v. Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tenn. 2000) (internal citations omitted).

2015The law of the case doctrine is not a constitutional mandate nor a limitation on the power of a court. 5 Am.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 605 (1995); Ladd, 939 S.W.2d at 90 .

2013Further, as we noted under his claim for conversion, there were certain determinations that must be made before it could be 8 “Under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court’s decision on an issue of law becomes binding precedent to be followed in later trials and appeals of the same case involving the same issues and facts.” Ladd by Ladd v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 939 S.W.2d 83, 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). -20- determined that Plaintiff was entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the stock.

2018Because the law of the case principle “is merely a practice to guide the courts,” it “directs a court’s discretion [but] it does not limit the tribunal’s power.” Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 383 (Tenn. 2009).

2018Because the law of the case principle “is merely a practice to guide the courts,” it “directs a court’s discretion [but] it does not limit the tribunal’s power.” Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 383 (Tenn. 2009).

2006Co., 694 S.W.2d 327 (Tenn.App.1985) (The initial appeal did not establish the law of the case because the facts in the second appeal were not substantially the same as the facts in the prior appeal); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, n. 8 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, n. 8 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) (The doctrine does not apply if the court is “convinced that [its prior decision] is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”); Sherley v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Ky.1994) (The law of the case doctrine does not apply where there has been an intervening change of controlling

2005Ed. 2d 318 (1983) (The doctrine does not apply if the court is “convinced that [its prior decision] is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”); Sherley v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Ky. 1994) (The law of the case doctrine does not apply where there has been an intervening change of controlling authority.) -6- Memphis Publ’g Co., 975 S.W.2d at 306 .

2015Neither a constitutional mandate nor a limit on judicial power, the law of the case doctrine represents “a longstanding discretionary rule of judicial practice.” Memphis Publ’g Co., 975 S.W.2d at 306 ; see also Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 383 (Tenn.2009) (“Law of the case directs a court’s discretion; it does not limit the tribunal’s power.” (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)).

2015Neither a constitutional mandate nor a limit on judicial power, the law of the case doctrine represents “a longstanding discretionary rule of judicial practice.” Memphis Publ’g Co., 975 S.W.2d at 306 ; see also Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 383 (Tenn.2009) (“Law of the case directs a court’s discretion; it does not limit the tribunal’s power.” (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)).

2026See generally In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 495 S.W.3d 257, 266 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (“The law of the case doctrine generally prohibits reconsideration of issues that have already been decided in a prior appeal of the same case.” (citation, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)). - 14 - circumstances.” (citations omitted)).

2025As this Court has previously explained: “The law of the case doctrine ‘generally prohibits reconsideration of issues that have already been decided in a prior appeal of the same case.”” In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 495 S.W.3d 257, 266 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Tenn. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tenn. 1998)).

1997Jones v. Jones, 784 S.W.2d 349 , 351 n. 1 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989); Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 470-71 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987) (quoting Holcomb v. McClure, 64 So.2d 689, 691 (Miss.1953)); 1B James W.

1996Jones v. Jones, 784 S.W.2d 349 , 351 n. 1 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989); Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 470-71 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987) (quoting Holcomb v. McClure, 217 Miss. 617 , 64 So.2d 689, 691 (1953)); 1B James W.

1997The doctrine has been applied to decisions that have not been reviewed by the Supreme Court, Bivins v. Hospital Corp. of Am., 910 S.W.2d 441, 447 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995), as well as to decisions that the Supreme Court has declined to review.

1996The doctrine has been applied to decisions that have not been reviewed by the Supreme Court, Bivins v. Hospital Corp. of Am., 910 S.W.2d 441, 447 (Tenn.Ct.App.1995), as well as to decisions that the Supreme Court has declined to review.

1997Jones v. Jones, 784 S.W.2d 349 , 351 n. 1 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989); Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 470-71 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987) (quoting Holcomb v. McClure, 64 So.2d 689, 691 (Miss.1953)); 1B James W.

1996Jones v. Jones, 784 S.W.2d 349 , 351 n. 1 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989); Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 470-71 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987) (quoting Holcomb v. McClure, 217 Miss. 617 , 64 So.2d 689, 691 (1953)); 1B James W.

2025Willis, 496 S.W.3d. at 743-44 (Appendix) (quoting the opinion of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals).

2017As noted by the post-conviction court and pointed out by the State, the issue of the effect of the petitioner‟s mental illness on the voluntariness of her pleas has already been litigated in the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas, the denial of which was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. “„[U]nder the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court‟s decision on an issue of law is binding in later trials and appeals of the same case if the facts on the second trial or appeal are substantially the same as the facts in the first trial or appeal.‟” State v. Willis, 496 S.W.3d 653, 743 (Tenn.

2022App. Oct. 21, 2013) (stating the law of the case doctrine “bars a petitioner from raising the issue anew in a denial of habeas corpus relief”), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2014); Myers v. State, 462 S.W.2d 265, 269 (Tenn.Crim.App.1970) (holding that a petitioner may not relitigate questions previously determined adversely to him in two separate habeas corpus cases by courts of competent jurisdiction).

2015App. Oct. 21, 2013) (stating the law of the case doctrine “bars a petitioner from raising the issue anew in a denial of habeas corpus relief”), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 14, 2014); Myers v. State, 462 S.W.2d 265, 269 (Tenn. Crim.

2021See Rouse v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 300 F.3d 711, 715 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting that the law of the case doctrine, which generally prevents reconsideration of claims that have been decided at a previous stage in the same litigation); see also Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Tenn. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tenn. 1998) (recognizing that the law of the case doctrine “is a longstanding discretionary rule of judicial practice which is based on the common sense recognition that issues previously litigated and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction ordinarily need not be

2020See Rouse v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 300 F.3d 711, 715 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting that the law of the case doctrine, which generally prevents reconsideration of claims that have been decided at a previous stage in the same litigation, “also bars challenges to a decision made at a previous stage of the litigation which could have been challenged in a prior appeal, but were not”).

2017Gov’t of Nashville, 318 S.W.3d 342, 348 (Tenn. 2010)).

2015Gov’t of Nashville, 318 S.W.3d 342, 348 (Tenn.2010); 36 C.J.S.

2003See Chaille v. Warren, 689 S.W.2d 173, 179 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985) (holding that issue of additional appellate attorney’s fees was properly addressed after limited remand “because it was not an issue, and, therefore, was not part of the first appeal in this case”); Charles Kenneth Branch v. Virginia Louise Thompson, No. M2001- 012310COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App., at Nashville, Feb. 22, 2002) (stating that the law of the case doctrine applies only to issues that were actually before the court or were necessarily decided by implication).

2003See Chaille v. Warren, 689 S.W.2d 173, 179 (Tenn.Ct.App.1985) (holding that issue of additional appellate attorney’s fees was properly addressed after limited remand “because it was not an issue, and, therefore, was not part of the first appeal in this case”); Charles Kenneth Branch v. Virginia Louise Thompson, No. M2001-012310COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct.App., at Nashville, Feb. 22, 2002) (stating that the law of the case doctrine applies only to issues that were actually before the court or were necessarily decided by implication).

2025And while this Court’s decision in State v. Hall clarifies that the law of the case doctrine is discretionary, that case involved our Court exercising that discretion to review the sufficiency of the evidence in a capital case where defense counsel’s “shortcomings” affected the defendant’s appeal. 461 S.W.3d 469 , 500–01 (Tenn. 2015).

2022The law of the case doctrine “typically precludes the reconsideration of issues already decided in prior appeals of the same case.” State v. Hall, 461 S.W.3d 469, 500 (Tenn. 2015) (citing State v. Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d 558, 560 (Tenn. 2000)). “[U]nder the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court’s decision on an issue of law is binding in later trials and appeals of the same case if the facts on the second trial or appeal are substantially the same as the facts in the first trial or appeal.” Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d at 560 - 61 (quoting Memphis Publg.

2021Co. v. Jett, 175 Tenn. 295, 299 , 133 S.W.2d 997 , 998–99 (1939)).

2021Co. v. Jett, 175 Tenn. 295, 299 , 133 S.W.2d 997 , 998–99 (1939)).

2026When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the relevant question of the reviewing court is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also Tenn. R.

2024Appellate courts - 19 - reviewing a distribution of marital property “ordinarily defer to the trial judge’s decision unless it is inconsistent with the factors in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121 (c) or is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” Manis v. Manis, 49 S.W.3d 295, 306 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

2024Memphis Publ’g - 18 - Co. v. Tenn. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tenn. 1998); Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Nashville Lodging Co., 213 S.W.3d 855, 861 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

2024Simply put, “a court will generally refuse to reconsider an issue that has already been decided by the same court in the same case.” In re Neveah W., 525 S.W.3d 223, 236 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).

2022Allen, 2011 WL 1601587 , at *9; see also Bush v. State, 428 S.W.3d 1, 15-16 (Tenn. 2014) (citing Pike v. State, 164 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tenn. 2005)) (noting that “post-conviction relief is entirely a creature of statute”).

2022Allen, 2011 WL 1601587 , at *9; see also Bush v. State, 428 S.W.3d 1, 15-16 (Tenn. 2014) (citing Pike v. State, 164 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tenn. 2005)) (noting that “post-conviction relief is entirely a creature of statute”).

2020See Christianson, 486 U.S. at 817 (“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.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Tenn. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tenn. 1998) (recognizing that the law of the case doctrine “is not a constitutional mandate nor a limitation on the power of a

2019Powell v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 312 S.W.3d 496, 511 (Tenn. 2010) (“It is axiomatic that parties will not be permitted to raise issues on appeal that they did not first raise in the trial court.”).