law of the case doctrine in Arkansas

2019See , e.g. , Alexander v. Chapman , 299 Ark. 126 , 130, 771 S.W.2d 744 , 746-47 (1989) ("It also makes no difference that the trial court's decision to overrule the appellant's objection was not based on the law of the case doctrine.

2019See , e.g. , Alexander v. Chapman , 299 Ark. 126 , 130, 771 S.W.2d 744 , 746-47 (1989) ("It also makes no difference that the trial court's decision to overrule the appellant's objection was not based on the law of the case doctrine.

2025See Green, 2011 Ark. 70, at 9 , 378 S.W.3d at 721 (the test is not whether the moving party added enough new evidence, but rather, whether the new evidence is “sufficiently material to overcome the law-of-the-case doctrine”).

2025See Green, 2011 Ark. 70, at 9 , 378 S.W.3d at 721 (the test is not whether the moving party added enough new evidence, but rather, whether the new evidence is “sufficiently material to overcome the law-of-the-case doctrine”).

2008Stated differently, “[t]he doctrine of the law of the case ... prevents an issue raised in a prior appeal from being raised in a subsequent appeal unless the evidence materially varies between the two appeals.” Vandiver, 331 Ark. at 391-92 , 962 S.W.2d at 352 .

2008Stated differently, “[t]he doctrine of the law of the case ... prevents an issue raised in a prior appeal from being raised in a subsequent appeal unless the evidence materially varies between the two appeals.” Vandiver, 331 Ark. at 391-92 , 962 S.W.2d at 352 .

2013See Potter v. Easley, 288 Ark. 138 , 703 S.W.2d 442 (1986); see also Nat’l Surety Co. v. Long, 85 Ark. 158, 161 , 107 S.W. 384, 385 (1908) (“[T]he former decision, be it right or -wrong, is the law of this case, and it is not now open for the court to change the law of the case, whatever might be its views hereafter should another case arise.”).

2009See, e.g., Potter v. Easley, 288 Ark. 133 , 703 S.W.2d 442 (1986); Harper v. Shackleford, 41 Ark.

1994Willis v. Estate of Adams, supra ; see also Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 384 , 729 S.W.2d 422 (1987).

1994Willis v. Estate of Adams, supra; see also Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 384 , 729 S.W.2d 422 (1987).

1994Willis v. Estate of Adams, supra ; see also Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 384 , 729 S.W.2d 422 (1987).

1994Willis v. Estate of Adams, supra; see also Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 384 , 729 S.W.2d 422 (1987).

2022See Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 , 72 S.W.3d 841 (2002); Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enf’t, 345 Ark. 330 , 47 S.W.3d 227 (2001); Helena/West Helena Schs. v. Hislip, 78 Ark.

2022See Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 , 72 S.W.3d 841 (2002); Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enf’t, 345 Ark. 330 , 47 S.W.3d 227 (2001); Helena/West Helena Schs. v. Hislip, 78 Ark.

2024The “mandate rule” is a “sub-species” of the law-of-the-case doctrine, under which the appellate court’s decision “establishes the law of the case for the trial court upon remand and for the appellate court itself upon subsequent review and is conclusive of every question of law and fact previously decided in the former appeal, and also of those that could have been raised and decided in the first appeal but were not presented.” Id.

2022Law of the Case and Contract Law We explained the law-of-the-case doctrine in Turner v. Northwest Arkansas Neurosurgery, 91 Ark.

2022Weiss v. McFadden, 360 Ark. 76 , 199 S.W.3d 649 (2004); Wilson v. Wilson, 301 Ark. 80 , 781 S.W.2d 487 (1989).

2022Weiss v. McFadden, 360 Ark. 76 , 199 S.W.3d 649 (2004); Wilson v. Wilson, 301 Ark. 80 , 781 S.W.2d 487 (1989).

2003See, e.g., Bedell v. State, 260 Ark. 401 , 541 S.W.2d 297 (1976); Feldman v. State Board of Law Examiners, 256 Ark. 384 , 507 S.W.2d 508 (1974); Miller Lumber Company v. Floyd, 169 Ark. 473 , 275 S.W. 741 (1925).

2003See, e.g., Bedell v. State, 260 Ark. 401 , 541 S.W.2d 297 (1976); Feldman v. State Board of Law Examiners, 256 Ark. 384 , 507 S.W.2d 508 (1974); Miller Lumber Company v. Floyd, 169 Ark. 473 , 275 S.W. 741 (1925).

2001See, e.g., King v. State, 338 Ark. 591 , 999 S.W.2d 183 (1999), and Camargo v. State, 337 Ark. 105 , 987 S.W.2d 680 (1999). [2] One exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine arises where evidence is presented during the period between two appeals that materially varies from the evidence presented prior to the first appeal.

2001See, e.g., King v. State, 338 Ark. 591 , 999 S.W.2d 183 (1999), and Camargo v. State, 337 Ark. 105 , 987 S.W.2d 680 (1999). [2] One exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine arises where evidence is presented during the period between two appeals that materially varies from the evidence presented prior to the first appeal.

2022See Barnhart v. City of Fayetteville, 335 Ark. 57 , 977 S.W.2d 225 (1998); Hartwick v. Hill, 77 Ark.

2022See Barnhart v. City of Fayetteville, 335 Ark. 57 , 977 S.W.2d 225 (1998); Hartwick v. Hill, 77 Ark.

2014While Sanders cites Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 345 Ark. 330 , 47 S.W.3d 227 (2001), in support of his contention that this rule does not absolutely preclude error correction, our decision not to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine in that case was based on the fact that the original ruling on the issue was merely obiter dictum.

2014While Sanders cites Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 345 Ark. 330 , 47 S.W.3d 227 (2001), in support of his contention that this rule does not absolutely preclude error correction, our decision not to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine in that case was based on the fact that the original ruling on the issue was merely obiter dictum.

1994That notice of appeal eventually resulted in our opinion in this case, McDonald’s Corp. v. Hawkins, 319 Ark. 1 , 888 S.W.2d 649 (1994), in which we held that the law of the case doctrine prevented McDonald’s from raising an issue about the merits of the chancellor’s ruling.

1994That notice of appeal eventually resulted in our opinion in this case, McDonald’s Corp. v. Hawkins, 319 Ark. 1 , 888 S.W.2d 649 (1994), in which we held that the law of the case doctrine prevented McDonald’s from raising an issue about the merits of the chancellor’s ruling.

2001Fairchild v. Norris, 317 Ark. 166 , 876 S.W.2d 588 (1994).

2001Fairchild v. Norris, 317 Ark. 166 , 876 S.W.2d 588 (1994).

2006Furthermore, the law-of-the-case doctrine is not applicable if “there is a material change in the facts.” Wilson v. Wilson, 301 Ark. 80, 82 , 781 S.W.2d 487, 488 (1989); see also Linograph Co., 180 Ark. at 1120 , 24 S.W.2d at 323 (holding that law of the case does not apply where the facts have not been fully developed and there are other issues that have not been determined either by the trial or appellate court).

2006Furthermore, the law-of-the-case doctrine is not applicable if “there is a material change in the facts.” Wilson v. Wilson, 301 Ark. 80, 82 , 781 S.W.2d 487, 488 (1989); see also Linograph Co., 180 Ark. at 1120 , 24 S.W.2d at 323 (holding that law of the case does not apply where the facts have not been fully developed and there are other issues that have not been determined either by the trial or appellate court).

2018"The doctrine of the law of the case provides that the 'decision of an appellate court establishes the law of the case for the trial upon remand and for the appellate court itself upon subsequent review.' Washington v. State , 278 Ark. 5 , 7, 643 S.W.2d 255 (1982) (citing Mayo v. Ark.

2018"The doctrine of the law of the case provides that the 'decision of an appellate court establishes the law of the case for the trial upon remand and for the appellate court itself upon subsequent review.' Washington v. State , 278 Ark. 5 , 7, 643 S.W.2d 255 (1982) (citing Mayo v. Ark.

2011Jeffrey briefly asserts that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not bar modification of the divorce decree pursuant to Rule 60(c)(4) and cites us to Davis v. Davis, 291 Ark. 473 , 725 S.W.2d 845 (1987).

2011Jeffrey briefly asserts that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not bar modification of the divorce decree pursuant to Rule 60(c)(4) and cites us to Davis v. Davis, 291 Ark. 473 , 725 S.W.2d 845 (1987).

2023See Douglas v. State, 2014 Ark. 485 (per curium) (issue decided in direct appeal); Loftis v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 352 (per curium) (issue previously decided in revocation appeal); Strong v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 376 (per curium) (issue previously decided in appeal of motion to vacate a judgment). 5

2014Thus, as found by the trial court, the record does not support the argument of counsel, and the law-of-the-case doctrine bars consideration of the claim.2 See Strong v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 376 (per curiam) (explaining that, where the merits of a claim were addressed and adjudicated in a prior appellate decision, that issue is settled and may not be revisited in a subsequent appeal).

2021Furnas v. Kimbrell, 2015 Ark. 148 , at 12–13, 464 S.W.3d 116, 124 (citing Kelly v. Kelly, 2014 Ark. 543 , 453 S.W.3d 655 ).

2014We therefore hold that Christy was not 4 Cite as 2014 Ark. 543 barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine from seeking an unequal distribution after our holding in Kelly I that the stock was marital property.

2005Cadillac Cowboy appealed, and in Cadillac Cowboy v. Jackson, 347 Ark. 963 , 69 S.W.3d 383 (2002) (" Cadillac Cowboy II "), we held that the law-of-the-case doctrine applied and that the trial court was correct in applying the duty of care that we set forth in Cadillac Cowboy I, which was based on statutes that existed at the time of that decision.

2005Cadillac Cowboy appealed, and in Cadillac Cowboy v. Jackson, 347 Ark. 963 , 69 S.W.3d 383 (2002) (" Cadillac Cowboy II "), we held that the law-of-the-case doctrine applied and that the trial court was correct in applying the duty of care that we set forth in Cadillac Cowboy I, which was based on statutes that existed at the time of that decision.

2001The law-of-the-case doctrine provides that on second appeal the decision of the first appeal becomes the' law of the case, and is conclusive of every question of law or fact decided in the former appeal, and also of those which might have been, but were not, presented. 1 Slaton v. Slaton, 336 Ark. 211 , 983 S.W.2d 951 (1999); Barnhart v. City of Fayetteville, 321 Ark. 197 , 900 S.W.2d 539 (1995); Vandiver v. Banks, 331 Ark. 386 , 962 S.W.2d 349 (1998); see also, Alexander v. Chapman, 299 Ark. 126 , 771 S.W.2d 744 (1989).

2001The law-of-the-case doctrine provides that on second appeal the decision of the first appeal becomes the' law of the case, and is conclusive of every question of law or fact decided in the former appeal, and also of those which might have been, but were not, presented. 1 Slaton v. Slaton, 336 Ark. 211 , 983 S.W.2d 951 (1999); Barnhart v. City of Fayetteville, 321 Ark. 197 , 900 S.W.2d 539 (1995); Vandiver v. Banks, 331 Ark. 386 , 962 S.W.2d 349 (1998); see also, Alexander v. Chapman, 299 Ark. 126 , 771 S.W.2d 744 (1989).

2008This court has explained that “[o]n second appeal, . . . the decision of the first appeal becomes the law of the case, and is conclusive of every question of law or fact decided in the former appeal, and also of those which might have been, but were not, presented.” Vandiver v. Banks, 331 Ark. 386, 391 , 962 S.W.2d 349, 352 (1998) (quoting Mercantile First Nat’l Bank v. Lee, 31 Ark.

1998This court, in Griffin v. First Nat’l Bank, 318 Ark. 848 , 888 S.W.2d 306 (1994), adhered to the doctrine of law of the case, quoting the doctrine from Mercantile First National Bank v. Lee, 31 Ark.

1999Id. (citing Bedell v. State, 260 Ark. 401 , 541 S.W.2d 297 (1976), cert, denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977)); see also Findley v. State, 307 Ark. 53 , 818 S.W.2d 242 (1991).

1999Id. (citing Bedell v. State, 260 Ark. 401 , 541 S.W.2d 297 (1976), cert, denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977)); see also Findley v. State, 307 Ark. 53 , 818 S.W.2d 242 (1991).

2003Similarly, in Green, 343 Ark. 244 , 33 S.W.3d 485 , this court concluded that the doctrine of law of the case did not apply where, in the previous appeal, this court held that the appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s comment on a witness’s credibility was procedurally barred because the appellant failed to raise an objection at trial.

2003Similarly, in Green, 343 Ark. 244 , 33 S.W.3d 485 , this court concluded that the doctrine of law of the case did not apply where, in the previous appeal, this court held that the appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s comment on a witness’s credibility was procedurally barred because the appellant failed to raise an objection at trial.