law of the case doctrine in Missouri

2023Discussion Rule 74.01(b) provides that, in the absence of an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, any order or other form of decision “that adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims . . . and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims . . . .” Here, the crux of Emerald Pointe’s argument is that its petition contains a due process claim, that the 2021 Judgment did not resolve this claim, and, therefore, the 2021 Judgment has 6 not

2023“Generally the decision of a court is the law of the case for all points presented and decided, as well as for matters that arose prior to the first adjudication and might have been raised but were not.” Walton, 223 S.W.3d at 129 ; see also Soderholm v. Nauman, 466 S.W.3d 610, 618 (Mo.App. 2015) (stating that “[t]his rule applies to matters decided by the appellate court’s opinion, either directly or by implication” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “[T]he doctrine of the law of the case governs successive appeals involving substantially the same issues and facts, and applies appellate deci

2023It is correct that the law-of-the-case doctrine provides that “a previous holding in a case constitutes the law of the case and precludes relitigation of that issue on remand and subsequent appeal.” State v. Graham, 13 S.W.3d 290, 293 (Mo. banc 2000).

2013The law-of-the-case doctrine provides “that a previous holding in a case constitutes the law of the ease and precludes relitigation of that issue on remand and subsequent appeal.” State v. Graham, 13 S.W.3d 290, 293 (Mo. banc 2000) (quoting Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 996 S.W.2d 47, 61 (Mo. banc 1999)).

2021The law-of-the-case doctrine, “provides, in general, that a previous holding in a case constitutes the law of the case and precludes relitigation of that issue on remand and subsequent appeal.” Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 996 S.W.2d 47, 61 (Mo. banc 1999).

2021The law-of- the-case doctrine “is limited to cases in which the issue in controversy has been raised and decided in a prior appeal.” Id.

2022The law of the case doctrine “governs successive appeals involving substantially the same issues and facts, and applies appellate decisions to later proceedings in that case.” Williams v. Kimes, 25 S.W.3d 150, 153 (Mo. banc 2000).

2013Appellate courts “ ‘have discretion to consider an issue [despite the law of the case doctrine] where there is a mistake, a manifest injustice, or an intervening change of law,’ ” Williams, 25 S.W.3d at 154 (quoting Johnson, 22 S.W.3d at 189 ), or ‘“where the issues or evidence on remand are substantially different from those vital to the first adjudication and judgment.’ ” Walton, 223 S.W.3d at 130 (quoting Alma Tel., 40 S.W.3d at 388 ).

2023See 621 S.W.3d at 190. “‘According to the law of the case doctrine, failure to raise points in a prior appeal means that a court later hearing the case need not consider them.’” State v. Johnson, 22 S.W.3d 183 , 188-89 (Mo. banc 2000) (quoting United States v. Kress, 58 F3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995)).

2012United States v. Kress, 58 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir.1995).

2011The law of the case doctrine provides “that a previous holding in a case constitutes the law of the case and precludes relitigation of that issue on remand and subsequent appeal.” Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 996 S.W.2d 47, 61 (Mo. banc 1999). “[T]he decision of a court is the law of the case for all points presented and decided, as well as for matters that arose prior to the first adjudication and might have been raised but were not.” Shahan v. Shahan, 988 S.W.2d 529, 533 (Mo. banc 1999).

2005The Supreme Court has consistently held that the law of the case doctrine extends not only to issues expressly, presented and decided in prior litigation, but also “all matters that arose before the first adjudication and might have been raised but were not.” Williams v. Kimes, 25 S.W.3d 150, 154 (Mo. banc 2000) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Johnson, 22 S.W.3d 183, 189 (Mo. banc 2000)); Shahan, 988 S.W.2d at 533 ; Norris v. Bristow, 361 Mo. 691 , 236 S.W.2d 316, 319 (1951).

2021“Although the law of the case doctrine is not absolute . . . the court’s discretion to disregard it is exercised only in rare and compelling situations” such as “where there is a mistake, a manifest injustice, an intervening change of the law, . . . or where the issues or evidence on remand are substantially different from those vital to the first adjudication and judgment.” Jenkins v. Jenkins, 406 S.W.3d 919, 924, 925 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (citations, internal citations, and internal quotations omitted); see also Krysl, 615 S.W.3d at 850 (where, in a second appellate decision in the same cause

2015To the extent that Father and Mother repeat the same claims made in their first appeal, those claims are barred from consideration by the law of the case doctrine. “[T]he law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of issues that could have been raised in a previous appeal[.]” Jenkins v. Jenkins, 406 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Mo.App.2013).

2015See id.

2014Id. at *2 (citations omitted). ―Unless there is a change in the issues or the evidence, the court of appeals‘ previous holding constitutes the law of the case and concludes any issues decided.‖ Gamble v. Hoffman, 732 S.W.2d 890, 895 (Mo. banc 1987). ―The doctrine of the law of the case permits a decision on an issue of law made at one stage of a case to become 21 Homeowners petitioned for a writ of prohibition, arguing that the trial court exceeded its authority when it ordered them to release their lis pendens during the pendency of this appeal. 29 binding in successive stages of the same lit

2024“The doctrine of law of the case provides that a previous holding in a case constitutes the law of the case and precludes relitigation of the issue on remand and subsequent appeal.” Nance v. Maxon Elec., Inc., 425 S.W.3d 926, 930 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (quoting Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623, 632 (Mo. banc 2013)).

2023Discussion Rule 74.01(b) provides that, in the absence of an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, any order or other form of decision “that adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims . . . and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims . . . .” Here, the crux of Emerald Pointe’s argument is that its petition contains a due process claim, that the 2021 Judgment did not resolve this claim, and, therefore, the 2021 Judgment has 6 not

2023See 621 S.W.3d at 190. “‘According to the law of the case doctrine, failure to raise points in a prior appeal means that a court later hearing the case need not consider them.’” State v. Johnson, 22 S.W.3d 183 , 188-89 (Mo. banc 2000) (quoting United States v. Kress, 58 F3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 1995)).

2013Appellate courts “ ‘have discretion to consider an issue [despite the law of the case doctrine] where there is a mistake, a manifest injustice, or an intervening change of law,’ ” Williams, 25 S.W.3d at 154 (quoting Johnson, 22 S.W.3d at 189 ), or ‘“where the issues or evidence on remand are substantially different from those vital to the first adjudication and judgment.’ ” Walton, 223 S.W.3d at 130 (quoting Alma Tel., 40 S.W.3d at 388 ).

2024In re Estate of Corbin, 166 S.W.3d 102, 106 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (quoting State ex rel.

2010The law-of-the-case doctrine is “ ‘more than merely a courtesy: it is the very principle of ordered jurisdiction by which the courts administer justice.’ ” Id. at 106 (quoting Hankins v. Hankins, 864 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Mo.App.1993)).

2012State v. Phillips, 324 S.W.2d 693, 694 (Mo.1959); State v. Allen, 363 Mo. 467 , 251 S.W.2d 659, 660 (1952).

2000State v. Phillips, 324 S.W.2d 693, 694 (Mo.1959); State v. Allen, 363 Mo. 467 , 251 S.W.2d 659, 660 (1952).

2003Bellon Wrecking & Salvage Co. v. David Orf, Inc., 983 S.W.2d 541, 546 (Mo.App.

2000The Samuels argue that reopening the case “would reveal that certain material factual assumptions which underlie this Court’s application [of the parol evidence rule] on the cold appellate record are not in fact present in the case at bar.” The Samuels contend that the evidence on remand would show that the “five criteria” for application of the parol evidence rule are not present in this case. 4 The Samuels also contend that the interests of justice and fair adjudication favor reopening the case. ’ Under the law of the case doctrine, a “‘former adjudication is not only the law of the case as

2002“The doctrine of the law of the case governs successive appeals involving substantially the same issues and facts.” Bandy v. State, 847 S.W.2d 93, 94 (Mo. App. W.D.1992).

1996Such exceptions exist because the law of the case doctrine is “a rule of policy and convenience, a concept that involves discretion.” Bandy v. State, 847 S.W.2d 93, 94 (Mo.App.1992).

1999Steen v. Colombo, 799 S.W.2d 169, 174 [5] (Mo.App.

1993Notwithstanding the foregoing, as observed in Steen v. Colombo, 799 S.W.2d 169, 174 (Mo.App.1990), the doctrine of law of the case does not apply when, inter alia, injustice to the rights of the parties would be done by adhering to an earlier appellate opinion in an ongoing lawsuit. 3 For the reasons that follow, this court does not consider application of the doctrine of law of the case appropriate. *451 The trial court’s order that prompted the appeal in Harriman II, the order setting aside the judgment and quashing the execution and garnishments, was entered December 8, 1989.

2024“The doctrine of law of the case provides that a previous holding in a case constitutes the law of the case and precludes relitigation of the issue on remand and subsequent appeal.” Nance v. Maxon Elec., Inc., 425 S.W.3d 926, 930 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (quoting Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623, 632 (Mo. banc 2013)).

2015Though we agree that the trial court was bound to follow our 2008 decision, law of the case is not the applicable doctrine. “ ‘The doctrine of law of the case provides that a previous holding in a case constitutes the law of the case and precludes relitigation of the issue on remand and subsequent appeal.' ” Nance v. Maxon Elec., Inc., 425 S.W.3d 926 , 930 (Mo.App.W.D.2014) (quoting Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 623, 632 (Mo. banc 2013)).

2018This Court has described the law of the case doctrine as " 'more than merely a courtesy: it is the very principle of ordered jurisdiction by which the courts administer justice.' " Hankins v. Hankins , 864 S.W.2d 351 , 353 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993).

2010The law-of-the-case doctrine is “ ‘more than merely a courtesy: it is the very principle of ordered jurisdiction by which the courts administer justice.’ ” Id. at 106 (quoting Hankins v. Hankins, 864 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Mo.App.1993)).

2005The Supreme Court has consistently held that the law of the case doctrine extends not only to issues expressly, presented and decided in prior litigation, but also “all matters that arose before the first adjudication and might have been raised but were not.” Williams v. Kimes, 25 S.W.3d 150, 154 (Mo. banc 2000) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Johnson, 22 S.W.3d 183, 189 (Mo. banc 2000)); Shahan, 988 S.W.2d at 533 ; Norris v. Bristow, 361 Mo. 691 , 236 S.W.2d 316, 319 (1951).

2005The Supreme Court has consistently held that the law of the case doctrine extends not only to issues expressly, presented and decided in prior litigation, but also “all matters that arose before the first adjudication and might have been raised but were not.” Williams v. Kimes, 25 S.W.3d 150, 154 (Mo. banc 2000) (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Johnson, 22 S.W.3d 183, 189 (Mo. banc 2000)); Shahan, 988 S.W.2d at 533 ; Norris v. Bristow, 361 Mo. 691 , 236 S.W.2d 316, 319 (1951).

2023“Generally the decision of a court is the law of the case for all points presented and decided, as well as for matters that arose prior to the first adjudication and might have been raised but were not.” Walton, 223 S.W.3d at 129 ; see also Soderholm v. Nauman, 466 S.W.3d 610, 618 (Mo.App. 2015) (stating that “[t]his rule applies to matters decided by the appellate court’s opinion, either directly or by implication” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “[T]he doctrine of the law of the case governs successive appeals involving substantially the same issues and facts, and applies appellate deci

2016The doctrine of law of the case provides that,.an “‘appellate decision becomes the law of the case in a.subsequent proceeding in the same cause and precludes re-examination of issues decided in the original appeal.’” Soderholm v. Nauman, 466 S.W.3d 610, 618 (Mo.App.2015) (citation omitted).

2021State v. Bohlen, 698 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. App. 1985) (Bohlen II), is directly on point.

2021State v. Bohlen, 698 S.W.2d 577, 579 (Mo. App. 1985).

2019Corp. v. Mid–America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). 4 In Walton, our supreme court further recognized the following exceptions, none of which are raised by the Schnurbusches on appeal: The doctrine of law of the case, however, is not absolute.

2019Corp. v. Mid–America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). 4 In Walton, our supreme court further recognized the following exceptions, none of which are raised by the Schnurbusches on appeal: The doctrine of law of the case, however, is not absolute.

2012State v. Phillips, 324 S.W.2d 693, 694 (Mo.1959); State v. Allen, 363 Mo. 467 , 251 S.W.2d 659, 660 (1952).

2012State v. Phillips, 324 S.W.2d 693, 694 (Mo.1959); State v. Allen, 363 Mo. 467 , 251 S.W.2d 659, 660 (1952).

2012State v. Johnson, 244 S.W.3d 144, 163 (Mo. banc 2008); Laws v. State, 183 S.W.3d 629, 633 (Mo.App.

2010State v. Johnson, 244 S.W.3d 144, 163 (Mo. banc 2008).

2007In re Marriage of Quintard, 735 S.W.2d 388, 390 (MoApp.

2007In re Marriage of Quintard, 735 S.W.2d 388, 390 (Mo.App.

2023Having failed to raise the affirmative defense in response to Malin’s original petition, the Prosecutor is now precluded under the law of the case doctrine from arguing the condition 18 precedent of payment on this appeal as well. 13 Id.

2018"The doctrine of law of the case, however, is not absolute." Alma Tel. , 40 S.W.3d at 388 .

2011Appellate courts will not apply the law of the case doctrine if "the first decision was based on a mistaken fact or resulted in manifest injustice or where a change in the law intervened between the appeals." Deck, 303 S.W.3d at 545 , citing Walton v. City of Berkeley, 223 S.W.3d 126, 130 (Mo. banc 2007); accord, Cross v. State, 37 S.W.3d 256, 259 (Mo.App.2000) (refusing to apply law of case to preclude defendant from raising issue where law changed between first and second appeals).

2011Appellate courts will not apply the law of the case doctrine if “the first decision was based on a mistaken fact or resulted in manifest injustice or where a change in the law intervened between the appeals.” Deck, 303 S.W.3d at 545 , citing Walton v. City of Berkeley, 223 S.W.3d 126, 130 (Mo. banc 2007); accord, Cross v. State, 37 S.W.3d 256, 259 (Mo.App.2000) (refusing to apply law of case to preclude defendant from raising issue where law changed between first and second appeals).

2015“The law of the case doctrine governs successive appeals involving the same issues and facts.” Ironite Products Co., Inc. v. Samuels, 17 S.W.3d 566, 570 (Mo.App.E.D.2000).

2015“Under this doctrine, the appellate decision becomes the law of the case in a subsequent proceeding in the same cause and precludes re-examination of issues decided in the original appeal.” Id.