law of the case doctrine in California

2025(Stanley, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 787 , citing People v. Shuey (1975) 13 Cal.3d 835, 846 .) Here, Prime Health argues that there has been an intervening change in the law to avoid the application of the law of the case doctrine.

2024The law of the case doctrine provides that when an appellate court “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . , and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888 , 892– 893.) “The principle applies to criminal as well as civil matters.” (People v. Shuey (1975)

2015The rule is based upon the sound public policy of limiting litigation by preventing a party who has had one fair trial on an issue from again drawing it into controversy." (In re Marriage of Buckley (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 927, 935 .) 7 In addition, pursuant to the doctrine of the law of the case, " 'the decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case." (In re Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 150

2015Indeed, we specifically noted that “on appeal from the final judgment in this proceeding, Mansouri should be able to challenge the denial of her attorney fees motion and the granting of the Association’s motion to strike her costs memoranda.” (Id. at p. 258.) We would have had no occasion to note this if, as 2 “The doctrine of the law of the case is this: That where, upon an appeal, the [S]upreme [C]ourt [or Court of Appeal], in deciding the appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered

2025(Farfan, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at 951.) The People also argue defendant’s second petition is barred by the law of the case doctrine. “‘“The doctrine of the law of the case is this: That where, upon an appeal, the [reviewing] court, in deciding the appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal, and . . . in any subsequent suit for the same cause of action . . . .”’ The principle applies to criminal

2025(Farfan, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at 951.) The People also argue defendant’s second petition is barred by the law of the case doctrine. “‘“The doctrine of the law of the case is this: That where, upon an appeal, the [reviewing] court, in deciding the appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal, and . . . in any subsequent suit for the same cause of action . . . .”’ The principle applies to criminal

2025Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 425, 435 .) Pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case, “when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal …, and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.’ ” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 893 .) Moreover, as in the present case,

2024The law of the case doctrine provides that when an appellate court “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . , and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888 , 892– 893.) “The principle applies to criminal as well as civil matters.” (People v. Shuey (1975)

2025Bd. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1279, 1291 , citing Di Genova v. State Board of Education (1962) 57 Cal.2d 167 , 179–180.) The law of the case doctrine also applies “where the point of law involved was necessary to the prior decision and was “‘actually presented and determined by the court.’”” (People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 197 .) The “doctrine will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision, e.g., where there has been a ‘manifest misapplication of existing principles resulting in substantial injustice’ [citation], or the controlling rules of law have been altered o

2015That doctrine is “that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule *932 becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . .’ [Citations.]” (Kowis v. Howard (41992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 892-893 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 , 838 P.2d 250 ], fn. omitted.) As stated by the Supreme Court, “The doctrine of the law of the case does not extend to points of law which might have been but were not presented and determined

2026The People maintain that after Reed I, the court in People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 (Contreras) “determined that a term of 50 years to life is the functional equivalent of an LWOP,” and that that “decision changed the legal landscape, rendering the law of the case doctrine inapplicable.” Thus, the 5 People agree with defendant that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to determine whether defendant qualifies for resentencing under section 1170.4 We accept the concession. “‘The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court “states in its

2026(See People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246 [the law of the case doctrine applies to principles or rules of law that are necessary to the prior decision].) 12 To summarize, insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Presley and Gee acted with the intent to kill when they participated in the underlying shooting.

2026The People maintain that after Reed I, the court in People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 (Contreras) “determined that a term of 50 years to life is the functional equivalent of an LWOP,” and that that “decision changed the legal landscape, rendering the law of the case doctrine inapplicable.” Thus, the 5 People agree with defendant that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to determine whether defendant qualifies for resentencing under section 1170.4 We accept the concession. “‘The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court “states in its

2025(People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 441 .) Move Eden relies on a footnote in the same unpublished portion of Move Eden I to argue that the law of the case doctrine somehow precludes the City’s argument that the trial court erred in applying section 9241 to the 2024 Resolution.

2000(Id. at p. 11, fn. 6 [ 98 S.Ct. at p. 2147 ].) The high court also stressed that when an appellate court has determined that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, “the prosecution cannot complain of prejudice, for it has been given one fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it could assemble.” (Id. at p. 16 [ 98 S.Ct. at p. 2147 ], fn. omitted.) 8 However, regardless of the distinctions between civil and criminal law, “[i]n determining whether the law of the case, [which applies to both,] will control the decision on the subsequent appeal, . . . the appellat

2000(Id. at p. 11, fn. 6 [ 98 S.Ct. at p. 2147 ].) The high court also stressed that when an appellate court has determined that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, “the prosecution cannot complain of prejudice, for it has been given one fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it could assemble.” (Id. at p. 16 [ 98 S.Ct. at p. 2147 ], fn. omitted.) 8 However, regardless of the distinctions between civil and criminal law, “[i]n determining whether the law of the case, [which applies to both,] will control the decision on the subsequent appeal, . . . the appellat

2025(See Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482 , 491–492 [stating “we have declined to adhere to it where its application would result in an unjust decision, e.g., where there has been a manifest misapplication of existing principles resulting in substantial injustice, or where the controlling rules of law have been altered or clarified by a decision intervening between the first and second appellate determinations” but “[t]he unjust decision exception does not apply when there is a mere disagreement with the prior appellate decision”].) We do not conclude the circumstances here justify

2024Further, the reversal of the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication in Seagate I did not preclude decertification because the issue of common proof was not “actually addressed.” Under the law of the case doctrine, “[t]he decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.” (Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491 .) In Seagate I, we found the Boedeker declaration was “sufficient evidence

2022(Hernandez, at p. 111; Clemente v. State of California (1985) 40 Cal.3d 202, 212 [“The principal ground for making an exception to the doctrine of law of the case is an intervening or contemporaneous change in the law”].) Finding Hernandez 4 Section 189, subdivision (f) provides that the limitations on liability for felony murder in section 189, subdivision (e) do “not apply to a defendant when the victim is a peace officer who was killed while in the course of the peace officer’s duties, where the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was a peace officer engaged in th

2015(Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 890 , 100 P.3d 433 ].) “ ‘ “Where a decision upon appeal has been rendered by a District Court of Appeal and the case is returned upon a reversal, and a second appeal comes to this court directly or intermediately, for reasons of policy and convenience, this court generally will not inquire into the merits of said first decision, but will regard it as the law of the case.” ’ ” (Clemente v. State of California (1985) 40 Cal.3d 202, 211-212 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 445 , 707 P.2d 818 ].) The law of the case doctrine cannot be applied

2025Where there are exceptional circumstances, a court which is looking to a just determination of the rights of the parties to the litigation and not merely to rules of practice, may and should decide the case without regard to what has gone before.” (England v. Hospital of Good Samaritan (1939) 14 Cal.2d 791, 795 .) For this reason, courts “have declined to adhere to [the law of the case doctrine] where its application would result in an unjust decision, e.g., where there has been a manifest misapplication of existing principles resulting in substantial injustice, or where the controlling rules

2015(Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1505 .) The law of the case doctrine, while “not inflexible” (England v. Hospital of Good Samaritan (1939) 14 Cal.2d 791, 795 ), is an imprecise fit for this case.

2026LFG’s argument is barred by the law of the case doctrine. “ ‘ “The decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.” ’ ” (Leider v. Lewis (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1121, 1127 .) The doctrine applies not only to questions expressly decided but also to those implicitly decided because resolution of the issue was necessary to the prior appeal.

2025We disagree. 11 “ ‘ “The doctrine of ‘law of the case’ deals with the effect of the first appellate decision on the subsequent retrial or appeal: The decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘Generally, the doctrine of law of the case does not extend to points of law which might have been but were not presented and determined in the prior appeal. [Citation.] As an excep

2025(See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786 [the doctrine of law of the case applies when a reviewing court deciding an appeal “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision”]; see also People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 197 [to apply law of the case doctrine, the point of law involved must have been presented and determined by the court].) Thus, the law of the case doctrine does not apply.9 However, we determine the error to be harmless for another reason: because the jury’s verdicts and findings preclude Peraza from relief.

2025(See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786 [the doctrine of law of the case applies when a reviewing court deciding an appeal “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision”]; see also People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 197 [to apply law of the case doctrine, the point of law involved must have been presented and determined by the court].) Thus, the law of the case doctrine does not apply.9 However, we determine the error to be harmless for another reason: because the jury’s verdicts and findings preclude Peraza from relief.

1988Murphy Enterprises, Inc. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 124, 130 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 894 ].) Relying on Pigeon Point Ranch, Inc. v. Perot (1963) 59 Cal.2d 227, 231-232 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 865 , 379 P.2d 321 ] appellants assert this court’s denial of respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal is a definitive determination of its appealability, thus this court is barred from dismissing this appeal by the doctrine of law of the case.

1988Murphy Enterprises, Inc. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 124, 130 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 894 ].) Relying on Pigeon Point Ranch, Inc. v. Perot (1963) 59 Cal.2d 227, 231-232 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 865 , 379 P.2d 321 ] appellants assert this court’s denial of respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal is a definitive determination of its appealability, thus this court is barred from dismissing this appeal by the doctrine of law of the case.

2024Under the law of the case doctrine, “a matter adjudicated on a prior appeal normally will not be relitigated on a subsequent appeal in the same case.” (Davies v. Krasna (1975) 14 Cal.3d 502, 507 ; see People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246 [“when an appellate court ‘“states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout [the case’s] subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal”’”]; Searle v. Allstate Life Ins.

2014The Law of the Case Doctrine Does Not Restrict the Factors Appropriately Considered in the Arm-of-the-Tribe Analysis Under the law of the case doctrine, “a matter adjudicated on a prior appeal normally will not be relitigated on a subsequent appeal in the same case.” (Davies v. Krasna (1975) 14 Cal.3d 502, 507 ; People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246 [“when an appellate court ‘“states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout [the case’s] subsequent progress, both in the lower

2014(Moore v. Trott (1912) 162 Cal. 268, 273 [doctrine of law of the case does not embrace “points of law not presented and determined”]; Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 298, 309 [doctrine of law of the case “does not apply to points of law that might have been determined, but were not decided in the prior appeal”].) interests of the corporation, is a matter of defense, to be decided by a resolution of the factual issues presumptively involved”]; Sade Shoe Co. v. Oschin & Snyder (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1174, 1181 [an actor with “ ‘a financial interest in the business of another is

2013(Moore v. Trott (1912) 162 Cal. 268, 273 [122 R 462] [doctrine of law of the case does not embrace “points of law not presented and determined”]; Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 298, 309 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 ] [doctrine of law of the case “does not apply to points of law that might have been determined, but were not decided in the prior appeal”].) 14 The Individual Defendants point us to PM Group, Inc. v. Stewart (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 55 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 ] (PM Group).

2025Holdsworth asserts that the failure to plead the 1978 assault with a deadly weapon conviction as a section 667.7 predicate denied him fair notice that the prosecution intended to use the fact of that conviction for purposes of the life sentence, “which meant that [he] and his counsel could not properly determine [his] sentencing exposure.” As an initial matter, the Attorney General contends Holdsworth’s claim is barred by the law of the case doctrine, which provides that “a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court’s decision mus

2025(Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 453-454.) The law of the case doctrine is “related” to issue preclusion, though it “has to do with the legal principles governing a particular case in subsequent proceedings following an appeal.” (People v. Beaudreaux, supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 1240, fn. 4, emphasis in original.) It provides that “a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court’s decision must be applied throughout all later proceedings in the same case, both in the trial court and on a later appeal.” (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 C

2018As Findleton points out, "[l]itigants are not free to continually reinvent their position on legal issues that have been resolved against them by an appellate court." ( Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 298 , 312, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 , disapproved on other grounds in *352 Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637 , 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 408 , 413 P.3d 650 .) "The doctrine of the law of the case provides that ' " 'the decision of the case[ ] conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any

2018As Findleton points out, "[l]itigants are not free to continually reinvent their position on legal issues that have been resolved against them by an appellate court." ( Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 298 , 312, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 , disapproved on other grounds in *352 Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637 , 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 408 , 413 P.3d 650 .) "The doctrine of the law of the case provides that ' " 'the decision of the case[ ] conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any

2025Under the law of the case doctrine, “ ‘the decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.’ ” (Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 301 , italics added.) The doctrine applies only when “the evidence is substantially the same.” (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 442 .) The dispute over the collateral negligence 30. instruction was between plaintiffs and Ag-Wise, but the dispute in

2025Under the law of the case doctrine, “ ‘the decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.’ ” (Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 301 , italics added.) The doctrine applies only when “the evidence is substantially the same.” (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 442 .) The dispute over the collateral negligence 30. instruction was between plaintiffs and Ag-Wise, but the dispute in

2025Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 425, 435 .) Pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case, “when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal …, and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.’ ” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 893 .) Moreover, as in the present case,

2025Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 425, 435 [“primary purpose served by the law-of-the-case rule is one of judicial economy”].) Nor do we conclude the decision in Beck regarding Beck’s motion to disqualify and collateral estoppel is a manifest misapplication of existing principles that results in a substantial injustice.13 DISPOSITION The July 5, 2024 order denying Beck’s motion to disqualify is affirmed.

2021“The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . , and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.’ [Citations.]” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 892-893 , fn. omitted (Kowis); see Griset v. Fair Political P

2021“The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . , and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.’ [Citations.]” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 892-893 , fn. omitted (Kowis); see Griset v. Fair Political P

2004Under the law of the case doctrine, when an appellate court “ ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout [the case’s] subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal ....’” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 893 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 , 838 P.2d 250 ].) Absent an applicable exception, the doctrine “requires] both trial and appellate courts to follow the rules laid down upon a former appeal whether such rules are right or wrong.” (Estate of Baird (1924

1939In Estate of Baird, 193 Cal. 225 , at page 236 [ 223 Pac. 974 ], we find the following: “The evidence may be different, and yet unless it is substantially different in a material respect, the doctrine of the law of the case applies, and it applies notwithstanding the fact that in the previous decision evidence contained in the record is not quoted or cited in the opinion.” See, also, Young v. Southern Pac.

2026The People maintain that after Reed I, the court in People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 (Contreras) “determined that a term of 50 years to life is the functional equivalent of an LWOP,” and that that “decision changed the legal landscape, rendering the law of the case doctrine inapplicable.” Thus, the 5 People agree with defendant that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to determine whether defendant qualifies for resentencing under section 1170.4 We accept the concession. “‘The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court “states in its

2025The law of the case doctrine “prevents parties from seeking appellate reconsideration of an already decided issue in the same case, ‘ “ absent some significant change in circumstances.” ’ [Citation.] For the doctrine to apply, the point of law must have been presented and determined by the [appellate] court, the issue must have been necessary to the prior decision, and application of the doctrine must not result in an unjust decision.” (Jimenez, supra, 103 Cal.App.5th at p. 1006; see People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 374, fn. 6 (Bryant).) “[T]he doctrine does not apply

1976In essence the doctrine provides that when an appellate court has rendered a decision and states in its opinion a rule of law necessary to the decision, that rule is to be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same action. [1] (1b) The People emphasize that in Scott I the pat-down search of defendant was held to be lawful, the determination was necessary to the decision, and the decision was by written opinion. (2b) However, as we also reiterated in Shuey , courts should keep in mind that "the doctrine of the law of the case, which is merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the p

1976However, as we also reiterated in Shuey , courts should keep in mind that “the doctrine of the law of the case, which is merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the power of the court, has been recognized as being harsh, and it will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision.” (Id, at p. 845, quoting People v. Medina (1972) supra, 6 Cal.3d 484, 492 ; see also People v. Durbin (1966) 64 Cal.2d 474, 477 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 413 P.2d 433 ]; United Dredging Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1930) 208 Cal. 705, 712 [ 284 P.2d 922 ).) In order to preserve the utility

2018As Findleton points out, "[l]itigants are not free to continually reinvent their position on legal issues that have been resolved against them by an appellate court." ( Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 298 , 312, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 , disapproved on other grounds in *352 Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637 , 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 408 , 413 P.3d 650 .) "The doctrine of the law of the case provides that ' " 'the decision of the case[ ] conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any

2018As Findleton points out, "[l]itigants are not free to continually reinvent their position on legal issues that have been resolved against them by an appellate court." ( Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 298 , 312, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 516 , disapproved on other grounds in *352 Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637 , 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 408 , 413 P.3d 650 .) "The doctrine of the law of the case provides that ' " 'the decision of the case[ ] conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any

2025Bd. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1279, 1291 , citing Di Genova v. State Board of Education (1962) 57 Cal.2d 167 , 179–180.) The law of the case doctrine also applies “where the point of law involved was necessary to the prior decision and was “‘actually presented and determined by the court.’”” (People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 197 .) The “doctrine will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision, e.g., where there has been a ‘manifest misapplication of existing principles resulting in substantial injustice’ [citation], or the controlling rules of law have been altered o

2021(See George Arakelian Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 1291 .) Therefore, absent a significant change in circumstance, the law of the case doctrine prohibits Appellants from seeking appellate reconsideration of an already-decided issue.

2025(Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 453-454.) The law of the case doctrine is “related” to issue preclusion, though it “has to do with the legal principles governing a particular case in subsequent proceedings following an appeal.” (People v. Beaudreaux, supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 1240, fn. 4, emphasis in original.) It provides that “a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court’s decision must be applied throughout all later proceedings in the same case, both in the trial court and on a later appeal.” (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 C

2025(See Medrano, supra, 98 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1264-1265; see also People v. Campbell (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 350 , 371-375 [declining to apply law of the case doctrine in section 1172.6 context where the point at issue was “heavily fact- and evidence-based”].) Appellant contends the law of the case doctrine cannot apply for another reason: the direct appellate opinion “did not address the actus reus component at all; instead, it merely found sufficient evidence of intent to kill,” and that is insufficient to foreclose relief under Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th 433 .

2026Under the law of the case doctrine, “ ‘the decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.’ ” (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1505 .) In Soleimany I, the court stated in the “Factual and Procedural History” section of the opinion that: “Defendants failed to pay off their respective loans by the 2009 dates of maturity.

2026(Finato v. Keith A. Fink & Associates (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 136 , 149 (Finato).) Under the law of the case doctrine, “‘“the decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.”’ [Citation.]” (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1505 (Sargon).) Accordingly, “to the extent the allegations in [the TAC] are analogous to those struck in [Asi I], they are pr