law of the case doctrine in Kentucky

2026The law- of-the-case doctrine is “a mechanism by which matters once litigated and finally determined remain final.” Id.

2025The law of the case doctrine is a universally recognized rule “that an opinion or decision of an appellate court in the -7- same cause is the law of the case for a subsequent trial or appeal however erroneous the opinion or decision may have been.” Id. at 751 (citing Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Blackwell’s Adm’r, 291 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Ky. 1956)).

2024The law of the case doctrine “applies to the determination of questions of law and not questions of fact.” Hardaway Management Co. v. Southerland, 977 S.W.2d 910, 915 (Ky. 1998) (citing Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Ky. 1982)).

2024“The law-of-the-case doctrine describes a principle which requires obedience to appellate court decisions in all subsequent stages of the litigation.” Buckley v. Wilson, 177 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Ky. 2005) (citing Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847 (Ky. 1982)).

2025The law-of-the-case doctrine “refers to a handful of related rules giving substance to the general principle that a court addressing later phases of a lawsuit should not reopen questions decided by that court or by a higher court during earlier phases of the litigation.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 577, 610 (Ky. 2010).

2024To explain, the law-of-the-case doctrine is “an iron rule, universally recognized, that an opinion or decision of an appellate court in the same cause is the law of the case for a subsequent trial or appeal however erroneous the opinion or decision may have been.” B.S.S. v. K.S., 599 S.W.3d 858 , 862 (Ky. 2020) (quoting Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Blackwell’s Adm’r, 291 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Ky. 1956)). “[O]n remand from a higher court a lower court must obey and give effect to the higher court’s express or necessarily implied holdings and instructions.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 577,

2024Proper application of the law- of-the-case doctrine “is a question of law to be reviewed de novo.” University Medical Center, Inc. v. Beglin, 432 S.W.3d 175, 178 (Ky. App. 2014).

2021Proper application of the law- of-the-case doctrine “is a question of law to be reviewed de novo.” University Medical Center, Inc. v. Beglin, 432 S.W.3d 175, 178 (Ky. App. 2014). -36- In St.

2024“Where multiple appeals occur in the course of litigation, the law-of- the-case doctrine provides that issues decided in earlier appeals should not be revisited in subsequent ones when the evidence is substantially the same.” Wright v. Carroll, 452 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Ky. 2014).

2024The law of the case rule serves litigants by ensuring the finality of appellate judicial decision on questions of law and “serves the equally important interest courts have in judicial economy by preventing the drain on judicial resources that would result if previous decisions were routinely subject to reconsideration.” Wright v. Carroll, 452 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Ky. 2014).

2025The law of the case doctrine is a universally recognized rule “that an opinion or decision of an appellate court in the -7- same cause is the law of the case for a subsequent trial or appeal however erroneous the opinion or decision may have been.” Id. at 751 (citing Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Blackwell’s Adm’r, 291 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Ky. 1956)).

2022Therein, the Court observed that the law of the case doctrine is “an iron rule, universally recognized, that an opinion or decision of an appellate court in the same cause is the law of the case for a subsequent trial or appeal however erroneous the opinion or decision may have been.” Id. (quoting Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Blackwell’s Adm’r, 291 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Ky. 1956)).

2025Appellate courts, therefore, are to “hold fast to the law-of-the case doctrine in the interest of maintaining the integrity of prior appellate rulings.” Ragland v. Estate of DiGiuro, 352 S.W.3d 908, 915 (Ky. App. 2010). -14- Having reviewed the record, and being otherwise sufficiently advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-styled appeals shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED AS MOOT.

2025Appellate courts, therefore, are to “hold fast to the law-of-the case doctrine in the interest of maintaining the integrity of prior appellate rulings.” Ragland v. Estate of DiGiuro, 352 S.W.3d 908, 915 (Ky. App. 2010). -14- Having reviewed the record, and being otherwise sufficiently advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-styled appeals shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED AS MOOT.

2025“As applied in Kentucky, the law of the case doctrine applies only to rulings by an appellate court and not to rulings by a trial court.” Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 451, 466-67 (Ky. 2005); see also Scamahorne v. Commonwealth, 376 S.W.2d 686, 687-68 (Ky. 1964).2 Here, the trial court analyzed and ruled on a question that should have first been addressed to the Department of Corrections.

2020The law of the case doctrine concerns the extent to which a judicial decision made at one stage of litigation is binding at a subsequent stage. “[I]n Kentucky, the law of the case doctrine applies only to rulings by an appellate court and not to rulings by a trial court.” Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 451, 466-67 (Ky. 2005).

2025Subsequently, the trial court entered an order on remand [i.e., the above-referenced April 24, 2020 order] vacating the orders of sale and directing the master commissioner to deliver a deed to Lawrence. 8 “The law-of-the-case doctrine describes a principle which requires obedience to appellate court decisions in all subsequent stages of the litigation.” Buckley v. Wilson, 177 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Ky. 2005) (footnote omitted).

2025Subsequently, the trial court entered an order on remand [i.e., the above-referenced April 24, 2020 order] vacating the orders of sale and directing the master commissioner to deliver a deed to Lawrence. 8 “The law-of-the-case doctrine describes a principle which requires obedience to appellate court decisions in all subsequent stages of the litigation.” Buckley v. Wilson, 177 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Ky. 2005) (footnote omitted).

2024“The law of the case doctrine is ‘an iron rule, universally recognized, that an opinion or decision of an appellate court in the same cause is the law of the case for a subsequent trial or appeal[.]’” TECO Mechanical Contractor, Inc. v. Kentucky Labor Cabinet, 474 S.W.3d 153, 158 (Ky. App. 2014).

2024Cabinet, 474 S.W.3d 153, 158 (Ky. App. 2014) (“[t]hat doctrine is the mechanism by which matters once litigated and finally determined remain so”). 36 The law of the case doctrine does not apply to make rulings by a trial court binding on an appellate court.

2025“As applied in Kentucky, the law of the case doctrine applies only to rulings by an appellate court and not to rulings by a trial court.” Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 174 S.W.3d 451, 466-67 (Ky. 2005); see also Scamahorne v. Commonwealth, 376 S.W.2d 686, 687-68 (Ky. 1964).2 Here, the trial court analyzed and ruled on a question that should have first been addressed to the Department of Corrections.

2013Scamahorne v. Commonwealth, 376 S.W.2d 686, 687-88 (Ky.1964).

2023In Williamson, like here, the Court of Appeals granted partial relief to the appellant and it wasn’t until after the trial court implemented the Court of Appeals’ order that the appellant sought relief from the Kentucky Supreme Court.8 Before addressing the merits of the appeal, the Court considered whether the law of the case doctrine precluded consideration of the appellant’s claim.9 The Court explained the appellate procedure which likewise applies in this case: 7 767 S.W.2d 323 (Ky. 1989). 8 Id. at 324-25. 9 Id. 4 It is fundamental that when an issue is finally determined by an appellate c

2023In Williamson, like here, the Court of Appeals granted partial relief to the appellant and it wasn’t until after the trial court implemented the Court of Appeals’ order that the appellant sought relief from the Kentucky Supreme Court.8 Before addressing the merits of the appeal, the Court considered whether the law of the case doctrine precluded consideration of the appellant’s claim.9 The Court explained the appellate procedure which likewise applies in this case: 7 767 S.W.2d 323 (Ky. 1989). 8 Id. at 324-25. 9 Id. 4 It is fundamental that when an issue is finally determined by an appellate c

2024Ultimately, “[t]he State Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the application of the doctrine of law of the case.” Sherley, 37 889 S.W.2d at 797 .

2014In that case this Court stated: The law of the case doctrine does not apply where the controlling law changes in the interim, and the issue is not ripe until the change in controlling law occurs; otherwise, “Application of the law of the case doctrine would require every defendant and every prosecutor to immediately challenge every aspect of the law involved in the case or forever be denied relief.” Id. at 812 (quoting Sherley v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Ky.1994)).

2006The Commonwealth cites Gossett v. *715 Commonwealth, 441 S.W.2d 117 (Ky.1969) for the proposition that: Where the law of the case rule is applicable, it has sufficient flexibility to permit the appellate court to admit and correct an error made in the previous decision where substantial injustice might otherwise result and the former decision is clearly and palpably erroneous.

2004However, as our predecessor Court noted in Gossett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 441 S.W.2d 117, 118 (1969), where the law of the case rule is applicable, “it has sufficient flexibility to permit the appellate court to admit and correct an error made in the previous decision where *445 substantial injustice might otherwise result and the former decision is clearly and palpably erroneous.” See also White v. Commonwealth, Ky., 360 S.W.2d 198 (1962).

2025See id. (holding that a Workers’ Compensation Board order containing multiple distinct directives should be analyzed for finality under the law of the case doctrine); see also Hall v. BPM Lumber, LLC, No. 2023-SC-0332-WC, 2024 WL 5174554 , *7 (Ky. Dec. 19, 2024) (unpublished3 but reaffirming and applying Morgan, supra).

2025See id. (holding that a Workers’ Compensation Board order containing multiple distinct directives should be analyzed for finality under the law of the case doctrine); see also Hall v. BPM Lumber, LLC, No. 2023-SC-0332-WC, 2024 WL 5174554 , *7 (Ky. Dec. 19, 2024) (unpublished3 but reaffirming and applying Morgan, supra).

2024The law of the case doctrine “applies to the determination of questions of law and not questions of fact.” Hardaway Management Co. v. Southerland, 977 S.W.2d 910, 915 (Ky. 1998) (citing Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Ky. 1982)).

2024Co. v. Southerland, 977 S.W.2d 910, 915 (Ky. 1998) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine does not apply to require that the Kentucky Supreme Court to be bound to a decision of the Sixth Circuit).

1982In Siler v. Williford, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 262 (1964), this court had before it the law-of-the-case doctrine and the propriety of applying it to the issues made therein.

1982In Siler v. Williford, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 262 (1964), this court had before it the law-of-the-case doctrine and the propriety of applying it to the issues made therein.

2026As this Court explained in Kincaid v. Johnson, True & Guarnieri, LLP, 538 S.W.3d 901 (Ky. App. 2017): “The law-of-the-case doctrine is ‘an iron rule, universally recognized, that an opinion or decision of an appellate court in the same cause is the law of the case for a subsequent trial or appeal however erroneous the opinion or decision may have been.’” Univ.

2022Its proper application is a question of law to be reviewed de novo.’” Kincaid v. Johnson, True & Guarnieri, LLP, 538 S.W.3d 901, 917 (Ky. App. 2017) (quoting Univ.

2025Housing Authority, 244 S.W.3d 747, 750 (Ky. App. 2007) (citation omitted) (quoting Lebow v. Cameron, 394 S.W.2d 773, 778 (Ky. 1965)).

2010This Court recently described the nature of the law of the case doctrine in Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority, 244 S.W.3d 747 (Ky.App.2007): Our Supreme Court said that “where a contention was not made, if it could or should have been made on appeal, the doctrine of res judicata prevented re-litigation [sic] of the same contention in a subsequent appeal.” Lebow v. Cameron, 394 S.W.2d 773, 778 (Ky.1965) (Citation omitted).

2025Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597, 612 (Ky. 2014) (quoting Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Ky. 1982).

2022Clair v. Commonwealth, 451 S.W.3d 597, 612 (Ky. 2014) (holding that “issues decided in earlier appeals should not be revisited in subsequent ones[]”) (quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 577, 610 (Ky. 2010) (stating that the law-of-the- case doctrine “refers to a handful of related rules giving substance to the general principle that a court addressing later phases of a lawsuit should not reopen questions decided by that court or by a higher court during earlier phases of the litigation[]”) (citation omitted)). 8 IV.

2023Fiscal Ct., 2019-CA-001290-MR, 2020 WL 4555519 (Ky. App. Aug. 7, 2020). 22 Id. at *3. 23 323 S.W.3d 646, 653 (Ky. 2010). 24 Cooper, 2020 WL 4555519 , at *3 (“The Supreme Court only allowed for an exception of an extraordinary nature, which is confined to the language set out in CR 60.02(f).”). 16 The court went on to hold that the trial court erred by granting the Bruners relief under CR 60.02(e) because neither CR 60.02(e) or (f) were applicable.25 The court noted that the Bruners had ample time to discover the evidence at issue during the original proceedings, but failed to do so.26 Citing a

2023The Court of Appeals, citing Toyota Motor, reasoned that “[t]he Supreme Court only allowed for an exception of an extraordinary nature, which is confined to the 53 Id. at 653 . 54 Id. 24 language set out in CR 60.02(f).”55 But all relief under CR 60.02 is relief of an extraordinary nature, as it forces a final judgment to be vacated.

2014He cites Estep v. Commonwealth, 64 S.W.3d 805, 812 (Ky.2002), as supporting an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine.

2014In that case this Court stated: The law of the case doctrine does not apply where the controlling law changes in the interim, and the issue is not ripe until the change in controlling law occurs; otherwise, “Application of the law of the case doctrine would require every defendant and every prosecutor to immediately challenge every aspect of the law involved in the case or forever be denied relief.” Id. at 812 (quoting Sherley v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Ky.1994)).

2004However, as our predecessor Court noted in Gossett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 441 S.W.2d 117, 118 (1969), where the law of the case rule is applicable, “it has sufficient flexibility to permit the appellate court to admit and correct an error made in the previous decision where *445 substantial injustice might otherwise result and the former decision is clearly and palpably erroneous.” See also White v. Commonwealth, Ky., 360 S.W.2d 198 (1962).

2001See also White v. Commonwealth, Ky., 360 S.W.2d 198, 202 (1962) ("[W]e consider that the law of the case rule has sufficient flexibility to permit us to admit and correct our error, particularly where substantial injustice might otherwise result.") [8] Union Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Blackwell's Adm'r, Ky., 291 S.W.2d 539, 542-3 (1956) (emphasis added and citation omitted). [9] 5 Am.Jur.2d (Appellate Review) § 605 (emphasis added). [10] Southern Railway Co. v. Clift, 260 U.S. 316, 319 , 43 S.Ct. 126 , 67 L.Ed. 283, 284 (1922). [11] Gossett v. Commonwealth, supra note 7 at 118. [12] Id. at 118

1982When an appellate court decides a question concerning evidence or instructions, the question of law settled by the opinion is final upon a retrial in which the evidence is substantially the same and precludes the reconsideration of the claimed error on a second appeal .... ” In Hutchings v. Louisville Trust Company, Ky., 276 S.W.2d 461 (1955), in discussing the law-of-the-case doctrine, we wrote: “If we were to ignore this rule, the defense is still not available to defendant for the reason that if such a defense could be raised on a demurrer to the petition it must be deemed to have been pass

1982When an appellate court decides a question concerning evidence or instructions, the question of law settled by the opinion is final upon a retrial in which the evidence is substantially the same and precludes the reconsideration of the claimed error on a second appeal . . . ." In Hutchings v. Louisville Trust Company, Ky., 276 S.W.2d 461 (1955), in discussing the law-of-the-case doctrine, we wrote: "If we were to ignore this rule, the defense is still not available to defendant for the reason that if such a defense could be raised on a demurrer to the petition it must be deemed to have been pa

2024Lockert v. U.S. Dept. of Lab., 867 F.2d 513, 518 (9th Cir. 1989). 34 The law of the case rule is a salutory rule, grounded on convenience, experience and reason.

2024Our sister Courts have opined that it is doubtful that the law of the case doctrine can be used to bind decision makers within an administrative process, 39 as explained by the Court in Lockert v. U.S. Dept. of Lab., 867 F.2d 513 , 517–18 (9th Cir. 1989): There is apparently no authority applying the law of the case doctrine to an administrative proceeding.