law of the case doctrine in Utah

2025Without it, considerable inefficiencies would result if parties were free to relitigate after remand issues decided in an earlier ruling of this court.” (cleaned up)); Thurston v. Box Elder Cnty., 892 P.2d 1034, 1038 (Utah 1995) (“[The mandate rule] serves the dual purpose of protecting against the reargument of settled issues and of assuring adherence of lower courts to the decisions of higher courts.”). 33 See 2016 UT App 177 , ¶¶ 37–39, 380 P.3d 60 . 34 Id. ¶ 39. 35 Id. ¶¶ 8, 37. 36 Id. ¶ 37–41; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 34 (“There are three exceptional circumstances in which the law

2018However, the law of the case doctrine is not a limit on power but, 'as applied to the effect of previous orders on the later action of the court rendering them in the same case, merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided.' Thurston , 892 P.2d at 1038 -39 (quoting Messenger v. Anderson , 225 U.S. 436 , 444, 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) ).

2025Without it, considerable inefficiencies would result if parties were free to relitigate after remand issues decided in an earlier ruling of this court.” (cleaned up)); Thurston v. Box Elder Cnty., 892 P.2d 1034, 1038 (Utah 1995) (“[The mandate rule] serves the dual purpose of protecting against the reargument of settled issues and of assuring adherence of lower courts to the decisions of higher courts.”). 33 See 2016 UT App 177 , ¶¶ 37–39, 380 P.3d 60 . 34 Id. ¶ 39. 35 Id. ¶¶ 8, 37. 36 Id. ¶ 37–41; IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 34 (“There are three exceptional circumstances in which the law

2023“In order to preserve an issue for appeal,” however, “the issue must be presented to the district (continued…) 20220195-CA 11 2023 UT App 120 SRB Investment v. Spencer ¶29 Under the law of the case doctrine, “a decision made on an issue during one stage of a case is binding in successive stages of the same litigation.” IHC Health Services v. D&K Mgmt., Inc., 2008 UT 73, ¶ 26 , 196 P.3d 588 (quotation simplified).

2018His decision on such a motion, moreover, obviates the need for us to decide whether it would be error for a court to rule on a new motion after the dispositive motion deadline has passed without an extension of the deadline. 5 "Under the law of the case doctrine, a court [may] decline to revisit issues within the same case once the court has ruled on them." McLaughlin v. Schenk , 2013 UT 20 , ¶ 22, 299 P.3d 1139 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 See, e.g. , Mascaro v. Davis , 741 P.2d 938 , 946-47 (Utah 1987) (reversing decision by successor judg

2014But in any event, we agree with the State that her "second motion is clearly barred by 'law of the case'" Id. at 969 . 116 Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a court may in its discretion revisit a ruling but may also "decline to reopen a matter it has already decided." IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 2008 UT 73, ¶27 , 196 P.3d 588 .

2022Under the law of the case doctrine, this court enjoys the discretion not to reconsider a prior ruling, id. ¶ 26, but the doctrine “does not prohibit a judge from catching a mistake and fixing it,” Gillmor v. Wright, 850 P.2d 431, 439 (Utah 1993) (Orme, J., concurring).

2012While both law of the case and res judicata operate to promote judicial economy, see Gillmor v. Wright, 850 P.2d 431, 439 (Utah 1993) (Orme, J., concurring) ("The law of the case doctrine is not a limit on judicial power, but only a practice designed 'to protect both court and parties against the burdens of repeated reargument by indefatigable dichards.'" (quoting 18 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478, at 789-90 (1981))), a key difference is that the law of the case doctrine applies to issues within a single lawsuit while res judicata applies to issues in separate

2001This doctrine " 'evolved to avoid the delays and difficulties that arise when one judge is presented with an issue identical to one which has already been passed upon by a coordinate judge in the same case."" Id. (quoting Sittner v. Big Horn Tar Sands & Oil, Inc., 692 P.2d 735, 736 (Utah 1984)). 114 Appellant also argues the findings contained in the December Order are not supported by the evidence and are contrary to the language contained in the stipulation of the parties and the Dever Order.

1992The purpose of the law of the case doctrine is “to avoid the delays and difficulties that arise when one judge is presented with an issue identical to one which has already been passed upon by a coordinate judge in the same case.” Sittner v. Big Horn Tar Sands & Oil, Inc., 692 P.2d 735, 736 (Utah 1984).

1999Corp., 572 P.2d 395, 397 (Utah 1977) (stating purpose of law of the case doctrine is "to avoid the delays and the difficulties involved in repetitious contentions and rulings upon the same proposition in the same case"); Salt Lake City Corp. v. James Constructors, 761 P.2d 42, 45 (Utah Ct.App. 1988) ("The law of the case doctrine is particularly applicable when ... a subsequent motion fails to present the case in a different light, such as when no new, material evidence is introduced."). ¶ 64 Appellant contends that the juvenile court's previous temporary custody determination cannot be applie

1999Corp., 572 P.2d 395, 397 (Utah 1977) (stating purpose of law of the case doctrine is “to avoid the delays and the difficulties involved in repetitious contentions and rulings upon the same proposition in the same case”); Salt Lake City Corp. v. James Constructors, 761 P.2d 42, 45 (Utah Ct.App.1988) (“The law of the case doctrine is particularly applicable when ... a subsequent motion fails to present the case in a different light, such as when no new, material evidence is introduced.”). ¶ 64 Appellant contends that the juvenile court’s previous temporary custody determination cannot be applied

2018P. 54(b) ; see also Macris v. Sculptured Software, Inc. , 2001 UT 43 , ¶¶ 29-30, 24 P.3d 984 (holding that "the law of the case doctrine does not prevent a judge from reconsidering his or her previous nonfinal orders" and extending this principle to a successor judge, who is not treated as a different judge, "but rather as the same judicial officer reconsidering a prior ruling" (citations omitted) ); Mid-Am.

2018P. 54(b) ; see also Macris v. Sculptured Software, Inc. , 2001 UT 43 , ¶¶ 29-30, 24 P.3d 984 (holding that "the law of the case doctrine does not prevent a judge from reconsidering his or her previous nonfinal orders" and extending this principle to a successor judge, who is not treated as a different judge, "but rather as the same judicial officer reconsidering a prior ruling" (citations omitted) ); Mid-Am.

2017See id. ¶48 “The law-of-the-case doctrine generally provides that a decision on an issue at one stage of a case is binding in successive stages of the same litigation.” Plumb v. State, 809 P.2d 734, 739 (Utah 1990).

2017“However, this doctrine does not prevent a judge from reconsidering his or her previous nonfi-nal orders,” id. but “‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided,’ ” id. (quoting Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 , 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912)).

2009We disagree, because the law of the case doctrine does not go so far as to "prohibit a judge from catching a mistake and fixing it."" Trembly v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 884 P.2d 1306, 1311 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).

1998One aspect of the doctrine of law of the case provides that “ ‘one district court judge cannot overrule another district court judge of equal authority.’ ” Trembly v. Mrs. Fields Cookies, 884 P.2d 1306, 1311 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (quoting Mascaro v. Davis, 741 P.2d 938, 946 (Utah 1987)).

2018Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah , 2001 UT 75 , ¶ 9, 31 P.3d 543 ("Under the law of the case doctrine, issues resolved by this court on appeal bind the trial court on remand, and generally bind this court should the case return on appeal after remand.").

2018Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah , 2001 UT 75 , ¶ 9, 31 P.3d 543 ("Under the law of the case doctrine, issues resolved by this court on appeal bind the trial court on remand, and generally bind this court should the case return on appeal after remand.").

2024See State v. Ellis, 969 P.2d 1053, 1054 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (holding that because the appellant’s co-defendant received reversal on the “identical facts and legal question” the appellant raised, the law of the case doctrine applied, likewise entitling the appellant to a reversal).

2003Under the terms of State v. Ellis, 969 P.2d 1053 (Utah Ct.App.1998), the law of the case doctrine renders Champneys binding on us for the purposes of Corwell's appeal.

2018His decision on such a motion, moreover, obviates the need for us to decide whether it would be error for a court to rule on a new motion after the dispositive motion deadline has passed without an extension of the deadline. 5 "Under the law of the case doctrine, a court [may] decline to revisit issues within the same case once the court has ruled on them." McLaughlin v. Schenk , 2013 UT 20 , ¶ 22, 299 P.3d 1139 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 See, e.g. , Mascaro v. Davis , 741 P.2d 938 , 946-47 (Utah 1987) (reversing decision by successor judg

2016When a trial court judge reviews another trial court judge‘s ruling, the doctrine prevents the second judge from overruling the first.23 There is an exception to this rule, however, that permits the _____________________________________________________________ 19 Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah, 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 31 P.3d 543 . 20 See Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 (―The mandate rule ‗dictates that pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in a case become the law of the case and must be followed in subsequent proceedings of that case.‘‖ (emphasi

2025While that umbrella covers distinct types of legal problems, each with a separate type of analysis, the doctrine generally provides that, prior to an appeal, parties are bound by the decisions of the trial court made within that case, although the trial court may have discretion to change those decisions until it enters its final judgment.29 ¶22 The “mandate rule,” on the other hand, applies after a case has been appealed.30 Once an appellate court issues its decision, both the appellate court’s pronouncements on legal issues and the prior decisions of the trial court generally become mandator

2023See Utah State Bar v. Rasmussen (In re Discipline of Rasmussen), 2013 UT 20210345 -CA 8 2023 UT App 38 Nelson v. Nelson 14, ¶¶ 17–18, 299 P.3d 1050 .

2023To the contrary, however, we have held that res judicata applies as between “[original] divorce actions and subsequent modification proceedings.” Smith v. Smith, 793 P.2d 407, 410 (Utah Ct. App. 1990).

2012See infra ¶ 9; Smith v. Smith, 793 P.2d 407, 410 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (explaining that the court has continuing jurisdiction over domestic cases, including modifications of orders upon "a showing of a substantial or material change in circumstances"). 3 .

2016R 21 , Herriman Irrigation Co. v. Keel, 25 Utah 96 , 69 P. 719, 720 (1902) (refusing to apply the law of the case doctrine when in an earlier appeal "the judgment [was] reversed and remanded for a new trial because material findings of fact [were] not supported by the proof, and when at the second trial additional evidence [was] offered and admitted"). 22 .

2016R 21 , Herriman Irrigation Co. v. Keel, 25 Utah 96 , 69 P. 719, 720 (1902) (refusing to apply the law of the case doctrine when in an earlier appeal "the judgment [was] reversed and remanded for a new trial because material findings of fact [were] not supported by the proof, and when at the second trial additional evidence [was] offered and admitted"). 22 .

2016When a trial court judge reviews another trial court judge‘s ruling, the doctrine prevents the second judge from overruling the first.23 There is an exception to this rule, however, that permits the _____________________________________________________________ 19 Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah, 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9 , 31 P.3d 543 . 20 See Utah Dep’t of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12 , 218 P.3d 583 (―The mandate rule ‗dictates that pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in a case become the law of the case and must be followed in subsequent proceedings of that case.‘‖ (emphasi

1988Sittner v. Big Horn Tar Sands & Oil, Inc., 692 P.2d 735, 736 (Utah 1984); Richardson v. Grand Central Corp., 572 P.2d at 397 ; Hammer v. Gibbons & Reed Co., 29 Utah 2d 415 , 510 P.2d 1104, 1105 (Utah 1973).

2018Pipeline Co. v. Four-Four, Inc ., 2009 UT 43 , ¶¶ 11, 14, 216 P.3d 352 (explaining that the law of the case doctrine preserves a judge's discretion to revisit a prior ruling and holding that this rule applies "regardless of whether the judge has changed or remained the same throughout the proceedings"); McLaughlin v. Schenk , 2013 UT 20 , ¶¶ 22-24, 299 P.3d 1139 (same). ¶26 Our "law of the case" precedent is thus in a state of internal conflict.

2018Pipeline Co. v. Four-Four, Inc ., 2009 UT 43 , ¶¶ 11, 14, 216 P.3d 352 (explaining that the law of the case doctrine preserves a judge's discretion to revisit a prior ruling and holding that this rule applies "regardless of whether the judge has changed or remained the same throughout the proceedings"); McLaughlin v. Schenk , 2013 UT 20 , ¶¶ 22-24, 299 P.3d 1139 (same). ¶26 Our "law of the case" precedent is thus in a state of internal conflict.

2023First, they argue that the district court violated the law of the case doctrine when, after the remand from the Utah Supreme Court, the district court altered a portion of the judgment that “had not been appealed and remain[ed] undisturbed on appeal.” Appellate courts review the “application of the law of the case doctrine . . . under an abuse of discretion standard.” McLaughlin v. Schenk, 2013 UT 20, ¶ 19 , 299 P.3d 1139 (quotation simplified). ¶24 The Spencers next argue that the district court erred by imposing certain limitations on their ability to move the location of the road.

2023First, they argue that the district court violated the law of the case doctrine when, after the remand from the Utah Supreme Court, the district court altered a portion of the judgment that “had not been appealed and remain[ed] undisturbed on appeal.” Appellate courts review the “application of the law of the case doctrine . . . under an abuse of discretion standard.” McLaughlin v. Schenk, 2013 UT 20, ¶ 19 , 299 P.3d 1139 (quotation simplified). ¶24 The Spencers next argue that the district court erred by imposing certain limitations on their ability to move the location of the road.

2018However, the law of the case doctrine is not a limit on power but, 'as applied to the effect of previous orders on the later action of the court rendering them in the same case, merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided.' Thurston , 892 P.2d at 1038 -39 (quoting Messenger v. Anderson , 225 U.S. 436 , 444, 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) ).

2018However, the law of the case doctrine is not a limit on power but, 'as applied to the effect of previous orders on the later action of the court rendering them in the same case, merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided.' Thurston , 892 P.2d at 1038 -39 (quoting Messenger v. Anderson , 225 U.S. 436 , 444, 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) ).

2018Corp. , 572 P.2d 395 , 397 (Utah 1977) (recognizing that the law of the case doctrine promotes judicial economy because it aids in "avoid[ing] the delays and the difficulties involved in repetitious contentions and rulings upon the same proposition in the same case"). 9 See Salo v. Tyler, 2018 UT 7 , ¶ 31, 417 P.3d 581 ("The summary judgment standard anticipates-and mirrors-the directed verdict inquiry.

1999Corp., 572 P.2d 395, 397 (Utah 1977) (stating purpose of law of the case doctrine is “to avoid the delays and the difficulties involved in repetitious contentions and rulings upon the same proposition in the same case”); Salt Lake City Corp. v. James Constructors, 761 P.2d 42, 45 (Utah Ct.App.1988) (“The law of the case doctrine is particularly applicable when ... a subsequent motion fails to present the case in a different light, such as when no new, material evidence is introduced.”). ¶ 64 Appellant contends that the juvenile court’s previous temporary custody determination cannot be applied

2023This was sufficient to bring the issue to the district court’s attention, thereby preserving it for appeal. 20220195-CA 12 2023 UT App 120 SRB Investment v. Spencer Woodward v. LaFranca, 2016 UT App 141, ¶ 8 , 381 P.3d 1125 (noting that a “remand with specific instructions to the trial court necessarily precludes the trial court from considering issues outside the scope of remand”). ¶30 The Spencers’ argument turns on “a subset of the law of the case doctrine” that is referred to as the “mandate rule.” State v. Oliver, 2018 UT App 101 , ¶ 29 n.8, 427 P.3d 495 .

2023This was sufficient to bring the issue to the district court’s attention, thereby preserving it for appeal. 20220195-CA 12 2023 UT App 120 SRB Investment v. Spencer Woodward v. LaFranca, 2016 UT App 141, ¶ 8 , 381 P.3d 1125 (noting that a “remand with specific instructions to the trial court necessarily precludes the trial court from considering issues outside the scope of remand”). ¶30 The Spencers’ argument turns on “a subset of the law of the case doctrine” that is referred to as the “mandate rule.” State v. Oliver, 2018 UT App 101 , ¶ 29 n.8, 427 P.3d 495 .

2023A key difference between the two doctrines, however, is that generally “[r]es judicata applies as between multiple cases while the law of the case doctrine applies to successive proceedings within one case.” State v. Waterfield, 2014 UT App 67 , ¶ 39 n.12, 322 P.3d 1194 , cert. denied, 333 P.3d 365 (Utah 2014). ¶26 This distinction could suggest that in a single divorce case—over which a district court has continuing jurisdiction to enter orders modifying the original decree, see Utah Code § 30- 3-5(5)—only the law of the case doctrine would ever apply.

2023A key difference between the two doctrines, however, is that generally “[r]es judicata applies as between multiple cases while the law of the case doctrine applies to successive proceedings within one case.” State v. Waterfield, 2014 UT App 67 , ¶ 39 n.12, 322 P.3d 1194 , cert. denied, 333 P.3d 365 (Utah 2014). ¶26 This distinction could suggest that in a single divorce case—over which a district court has continuing jurisdiction to enter orders modifying the original decree, see Utah Code § 30- 3-5(5)—only the law of the case doctrine would ever apply.

2018His decision on such a motion, moreover, obviates the need for us to decide whether it would be error for a court to rule on a new motion after the dispositive motion deadline has passed without an extension of the deadline. 5 "Under the law of the case doctrine, a court [may] decline to revisit issues within the same case once the court has ruled on them." McLaughlin v. Schenk , 2013 UT 20 , ¶ 22, 299 P.3d 1139 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 See, e.g. , Mascaro v. Davis , 741 P.2d 938 , 946-47 (Utah 1987) (reversing decision by successor judg

1993That issue has not been raised on appeal by any party. [1] While the general rule in Utah is that one judge of the same court cannot properly redetermine a previous ruling made by another judge in the same case, see State v. Lamper, 779 P.2d 1125, 1129 (Utah 1989), circumstances occasionally arise when a judge may properly overturn a peer judge's ruling in the same case.