law of the case doctrine in Colorado

2021See People v. Dunlap , 975 P.2d 723, 758 ( Colo. 1999 ) ( noting that under the law of the case doctrine, "prior relevant rulings made in the same case are to be followed unless such application would result in error or unless the ruling is no longer sound due to changed conditions" ) ; People v. Roybal , 672 P.2d 1003, 1005 ( Colo. 1983 ) ( noting that the law of the case doctrine "serves the dual purpose of protecting against the reargument of settled issues and assuring the adherence of lower courts to the decisions of higher courts " ) . ¶47 Third, I note that the majority's ruling in this

2020He bases this argument primarily on the law of the case doctrine, relying on People v. Roybal, 672 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Colo. 1983).

2026Applicable Law and Analysis ¶ 15 Under the law of the case doctrine, “prior relevant rulings made in the same case are to be followed unless such application would result in error or unless the ruling is no longer sound due to changed conditions.” People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723, 758 (Colo. 1999).

2025A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶ 41 As applied to earlier rulings of a trial judge, the law of the case doctrine is a discretionary rule of practice that provides that “prior relevant rulings made in the same case are to be followed unless such application would result in error or unless the ruling is no longer sound due to changed conditions.” Stockdale v. Ellsworth, 2017 CO 109, ¶ 37 (quoting People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723, 758 (Colo. 1999)).

2025And the law of the case doctrine doesn’t “prevent[] a trial court from clarifying or even 14 revisiting its prior rulings.” Stockdale v. Ellsworth, 2017 CO 109, ¶ 37 (quoting In re Bass, 142 P.3d 1259, 1263 (Colo. 2006)).5 ¶ 28 Thus, the second judge wasn’t bound by the first judge’s ruling.

2017That is, the law of the case doctrine does not “prevent[] a trial court from clarifying or even revisiting its prior rulings.” In re Bass, 142 P.3d 1259, 1263 (Colo. 2006).

2021Ct., 906 P.2d 72 , 78–79 (Colo. 1995)). ¶ 12 But, in a later appeal, when the decision in question issued from the same appellate court, a different division of that court may exercise its discretion and decline to apply the law of the case doctrine, . . . only “if it determines that the previous decision is no longer sound because of changed conditions or law, or legal or factual error, or if the prior decision would result in manifest injustice.” Saint John’s Church in Wilderness v. Scott, 2012 COA 72, ¶ 9 (quoting Vashone-Caruso v. Suthers, 29 P.3d 339, 342 (Colo. App. 2001)). 7 ¶ 13 The Sh

2017Court, 906 P.2d 72, 79 (Colo. 1995). ¶ 32 As to appellate rulings, the law of the case doctrine means that “[t]rial courts have no discretion to disregard” them.

2026Under the law of the case doctrine, “one division of this court” is generally “bound by the decision of another division in an earlier appeal.” Interbank Invs., LLC v. Eagle River Water & 7 Sanitation Dist., 77 P.3d 814, 817 (Colo. App. 2003).2 However, the doctrine functions as a “discretionary rule of practice,” People v. Morehead, 2019 CO 48, ¶ 10 (quoting People ex rel.

2025Ass’n, 2021 COA 114, ¶ 23 (the law of the case doctrine “expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided” (quoting People v. Morehead, 2019 CO 48, ¶ 10 )); Christianson v. Colt Indus.

2021Ct., 906 P.2d 72 , 78–79 (Colo. 1995)). ¶ 12 But, in a later appeal, when the decision in question issued from the same appellate court, a different division of that court may exercise its discretion and decline to apply the law of the case doctrine, . . . only “if it determines that the previous decision is no longer sound because of changed conditions or law, or legal or factual error, or if the prior decision would result in manifest injustice.” Saint John’s Church in Wilderness v. Scott, 2012 COA 72, ¶ 9 (quoting Vashone-Caruso v. Suthers, 29 P.3d 339, 342 (Colo. App. 2001)). 7 ¶ 13 The Sh

2015See Vashone-Caruso v. Suthers, 29 P.3d 339 , 342-43 (Colo. App. 2001) ("[W]hen the law of the case doctrine is applied to the decisions of an equal court or a different division of the same court, its main purpose is efficiency of disposition.

2016The doctrine “applies only to a court’s decisions of law and not to its resolution of factual questions.” In re Marriage of Dunkle, 194 P.3d 462, 467 (Colo. App. 2008). ¶ 48 Colorado courts have not precisely defined “same case” or “same proceeding” for purposes of the law of the case doctrine.

2016We therefore do not think that opinion is persuasive. ¶ 53 Second, the law of the case doctrine “applies only to a court’s decisions of law and not to its resolution of factual questions.” Dunkle, 194 P.3d at 467 .

2025See Saint John’s Church in Wilderness v. Scott, 2012 COA 72, ¶ 8 (“The law of the case doctrine protects parties from relitigating settled issues, on the grounds that courts generally ‘refuse to reopen what has been decided.’” (quoting People ex rel.

2025See Saint John’s Church in Wilderness v. Scott, 2012 COA 72, ¶ 8 (“The law of the case doctrine protects parties from relitigating settled issues, on the grounds that courts generally ‘refuse to reopen what has been decided.’” (quoting People ex rel.

2022See Monez v. Reinertson, 140 P.3d 242, 245 (Colo. App. 2006) (“[W]e are not bound by decisions of lower federal courts.”); Kuhn v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 897 P.2d 792, 795 (Colo. 1995) (explaining the law of the case doctrine). ¶ 49 First, John alleges (and the record supports the allegation) that the investigators did not consider Jane’s possible improper motivations for filing the complaint against John.

2002The doctrine of law of the case applies "not only to the conclusive effect of appellate rulings on remand, but also to the binding force of trial court rulings during later trial court proceedings." Kuhn v. Dep't of Revenue, 897 P.2d 792 , 795 n. 5 (Colo.1995)(quoting People v. Roybal, 672 P.2d 1003 , 1005 n. 5 (Colo.1983)).

2026Ct., 666 P.2d 550, 553 (Colo. 1983) — ask us to apply the law of the case doctrine to adopt the Vreeland III division’s opinion with regard to the validity of Vreeland’s sentence.

2016Court, 666 P.2d 550, 553 (Colo. 1983) (the law of the case doctrine is a discretionary rule of practice directing that prior relevant rulings in the same case must generally be followed). ¶36 Furthermore, Lensky had the right to exclude defendants and other third parties from the subject property because, as a putative adverse possessor, he has an interest in the property “enforceable against everyone except the owner or one claiming through the owner.” Spring Valley Estates, 181 Colo, at 438, 510 P.2d at 338 .

2025See Walter, 97 P.3d at 191 .

2019In re Estate of Walter, 97 P.3d 188, 191 (Colo. App. 2003).

2021Hardesty v. Pino, 222 P.3d 336, 339 (Colo. App. 2009). ¶ 23 The first branch, referred to generally as the law of the case, “‘expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided,’ and has been described as a ‘discretionary rule of practice.’” People v. Morehead, 2019 CO 48, ¶ 10 (quoting People ex rel.

2015Law and Analysis ¶58       Under the mandate rule embodied in the law of the case doctrine, “[t]rial courts have no discretion to disregard binding appellate rulings: ‘[t]he law of the case as established by an appellate court must be followed in subsequent proceedings before the trial court.’” Id. at 340 (quoting People v. Roybal , 672 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Colo. 1983)).

2025Ct., 924 P.2d 512, 515 (Colo. 1996). ¶ 12 The law of the case doctrine applies only to a court’s decisions of law and not to its resolution of factual questions.

2002See Pearson v. District Court, 924 P.2d 512, 515 (Colo.1996)(recognizing that prejudgment orders can be reconsidered at any time and that the law of the case doctrine "is not a rule to perpetuate error")(quoting 1B James W.

2015Whether a claim is barred by the law of the case doctrine is a question of law, Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Carney, 97 P.3d 961, 966 (Colo. 2004); see Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Dist. Court, 906 P.2d 72, 79 (Colo. 1995), as modified on denial of reh’g (Dec. 4, 1995), as is the interpretation of a prior decree, Burlington Ditch, 256 P.3d at 660 .

2015Comm'n v. Carney, 97 P.3d 961, 966 (Colo.2004); see Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Dist.

2025See People v. Warren, 55 P.3d 809, 813 (Colo. App. 2002) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, prior relevant rulings made in the same case generally are to be followed.”); People v. Dyer, 2019 COA 161, ¶ 39 (we may affirm on any ground supported by the record).

2007B.The Law of the Case Doctrine Under the law of the case doctrine, “prior relevant rulings made in the same case are to be followed unless such application would result in error or unless the ruling is no longer sound due to changed conditions.” People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723, 758 (Colo.1999); see also People v. Warren, 55 P.3d 809, 813 (Colo.App.2002).

2025Ctr., Ltd. v. Mercy of Colo., Inc., 793 P.2d 648, 650 (Colo. App. 1990)); see also S. Fork Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Town of S. Fork, 228 P.3d 192, 195-96 (Colo. App. 2009) (“[A]ny order, however denominated, that does not constitute a final judgment remains 5 subject to revision or modification at any time before the entry of such a judgment.”), aff’d, 252 P.3d 465 (Colo. 2011). ¶ 13 Because a court’s decision about whether to apply the law of the case doctrine is discretionary, we review that decision for an abuse of discretion.

1993See Governor's Ranch Professional Center, Ltd. v. Mercy, 793 P.2d 648 (Colo.App.1990) (doctrine of law of the case "applies to decisions of law, rather than to the resolution of factual questions" 793 P.2d at 650 ).

2025See Moore v. 1600 Downing St., Ltd., 668 P.2d 16, 19 (Colo. App. 1983) (the law of the case doctrine is generally inapplicable when there is new evidence before the court). 23 ¶ 49 Second, the trial court erred by finding that the defense “could have called Officer Hillers to provide a second perspective” at the suppression hearing.

2025See Moore v. 1600 Downing St., Ltd., 668 P.2d 16, 19 (Colo. App. 1983) (the law of the case doctrine is generally inapplicable when there is new evidence before the court). 23 ¶ 49 Second, the trial court erred by finding that the defense “could have called Officer Hillers to provide a second perspective” at the suppression hearing.

2019See Gavend v. Malman, 946 P.2d 558, 561 (Colo. App. 1997) (The law of the case doctrine “does not preclude a second judge assigned to a case from considering a motion for summary judgment denied by a previous judge, even if based upon the same issues.”).

2007See Mayer v. Sampson, 157 Colo. 278, 285 , 402 P.2d 185, 189 (1965); Gavend v. Malman, 946 P.2d 558, 561 (Colo.App.1997).

2026Under the law of the case doctrine, “one division of this court” is generally “bound by the decision of another division in an earlier appeal.” Interbank Invs., LLC v. Eagle River Water & 7 Sanitation Dist., 77 P.3d 814, 817 (Colo. App. 2003).2 However, the doctrine functions as a “discretionary rule of practice,” People v. Morehead, 2019 CO 48, ¶ 10 (quoting People ex rel.

2004"However, the law of the case doctrine recognizes limited exceptions to one division of this court being bound by the decision of another division in an earlier appeal." Interbank Invs., LLC v. Eagle River Water & Sanitation Dist., 77 P.3d 814, 817 (Colo.App.2008).

2025And the law of the case doctrine doesn’t “prevent[] a trial court from clarifying or even 14 revisiting its prior rulings.” Stockdale v. Ellsworth, 2017 CO 109, ¶ 37 (quoting In re Bass, 142 P.3d 1259, 1263 (Colo. 2006)).5 ¶ 28 Thus, the second judge wasn’t bound by the first judge’s ruling.

2025A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶ 41 As applied to earlier rulings of a trial judge, the law of the case doctrine is a discretionary rule of practice that provides that “prior relevant rulings made in the same case are to be followed unless such application would result in error or unless the ruling is no longer sound due to changed conditions.” Stockdale v. Ellsworth, 2017 CO 109, ¶ 37 (quoting People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723, 758 (Colo. 1999)).

2025See People v. Tolbert, 216 P.3d 1 , 5-6 6 (Colo. App. 2007) (noting that Rule 35(c)’s procedural bars do not apply to Rule 35(a) claims). ¶ 18 We review de novo the legality of a defendant’s sentence.

2010P. 85(a) motions should be procedurally barred under some circumstances, see People v. Tolbert, 216 P.3d 1, 5-6 (Colo.App.2007), we will not consider the affirmative defense of abuse of process because the People did not raise it in the district court and there is no support for it in the record before us.

2025See People v. Vialpando, 954 P.2d 617, 624 (Colo. App. 1997) (“Law of the case, 28 when applied to a court’s power to reconsider its own prior rulings, is a discretionary rule of practice because it merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided.” (citing People ex rel.

2025See People v. Vialpando, 954 P.2d 617, 624 (Colo. App. 1997).

2024Bd., 495 F.3d 1197, 1201 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that the law of the case doctrine applies to administrative agencies on remand). 5 114, ¶ 34 (discussing discretion of lower court after “an appellate court issues a general remand for further proceedings”). ¶9 We review de novo whether an agency complied with an appellate ruling.

2024Bd. , 495 F.3d 1197, 1201 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that the law of the case doctrine applies to administrative agencies on remand). 6 114, ¶ 34 ( discussing discretion of lower court after “a n appellate court issues a general remand for further proceedin gs ”). ¶ 9 We review de novo whether an agency complied with an appellate ruling .

2024See Mallon , 956 P.2d at 645 .

2000See In Re Marriage of Mallon, supra (although husband urged error on basis of res judicata, which doctrine did not. apply, court considered substance of argument under different framework).

2021DeForrest v. City of Cherry Hills Village, 990 P.2d 1139, 1142 (Colo. App. 1999). “[C]onclusions of an appellate court on issues presented to it as well as rulings logically necessary to sustain such conclusions become the law of the case.” Hardesty v. Pino, 222 P.3d 336, 340 (Colo. App. 2009) (quoting Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Dist.

2006See DeForrest v. City of Cherry Hills Village, supra (the law of the case doctrine discourages reconsideration only of the ruling itself, not of a court’s preliminary opinion on questions of fact or law related to the ruling); Colo. State Bd. of Med.

2026People v. Misenhelter, 214 P.3d 497, 500 (Colo. App. 2009), aff’d, 234 P.3d 657 (Colo. 2010). ¶ 15 The law of the case doctrine rests on the principle that “when an issue is once litigated and decided, that should be the end of the matter.” Verzuh v. Rouse, 660 P.2d 1301, 1303 (Colo. App. 1982) (quoting United States v. U.S. Smelting Refin. & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 (1950)).

2003Fortner v. Cousar, 992 P.2d 697 (Colo.App.1999); Verzuh v. Rouse, 660 P.2d 1301 (Colo.App.1982).

2026“Thus, a division of this court may review another division’s ruling in the same case where ‘the previous decision is no longer sound because of changed conditions or law, or legal or factual error, or if the prior decision would result in manifest injustice.’” Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., 2012 COA 120, ¶ 10 (citation omitted). “[T]he law of the case doctrine neither requires nor encourages courts to support erroneous judgments.” Giampapa, 64 P.3d at 243 . ¶ 80 In our request for supplemental briefing, we asked the parties whether this division had “authority to revisit Doug

2021However, the law of the case doctrine is “merely discretionary when applied to a court’s power to reconsider its own prior rulings.” Id. “[A] court may decline to apply the doctrine if a previous decision is no longer sound because of changed conditions of law.” Id. (stating that the court of appeals should have declined to apply the law of the case doctrine to its own prior decision in the same case in light of significant developments in the law). ¶ 71 In Colorado, the economic loss rule provides that “a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual

2020Inc. v. Leadville Corp., 856 P.2d 81, 85 (Colo. App. 1993).

1999Mining Equipment, Inc. v. Leadville Corp., 856 P.2d 81 (Colo.App.1993).

2026Ass’n, 2021 COA 114, ¶ 23 . ¶ 17 Although we ultimately agree with the Wolfe I division that the CGIA does not bar Wolfe’s claims because they “do not, and could not, lie in tort,” Wolfe I, slip op. at ¶ 18, we exercise our discretion and decline to apply the law of the case doctrine in this appeal.

2025Ass’n, 2021 COA 114, ¶ 23 (the law of the case doctrine “expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided” (quoting People v. Morehead, 2019 CO 48, ¶ 10 )); Christianson v. Colt Indus.

2012Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 , 108 S.Ct. 2166 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) ("[The law-of-the-case doctrine 'merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, [and is] not a limit to their power'...

2012Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 , 108 S.Ct. 2166 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) ("[The law-of-the-case doctrine 'merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, [and is] not a limit to their power'...