mandate rule in Virginia

2024“The mandate rule, itself an application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, forecloses further litigation of ‘issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Va. Imports, Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of Am., LLC, 50 Va. App. 395, 407 (2007) (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993)).

2023“While a trial court must obey ‘both the letter and spirit’ of an appellate mandate, the mandate rule only precludes the trial court from considering issues that ‘the mandate laid at rest.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he rule is ‘merely a “specific application of the law of the case doctrine,”’ which has the effect of foreclosing ‘relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Id. (quoting Powell, 267 Va. at 128 ).

2024“The mandate rule, itself an application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, forecloses further litigation of ‘issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Va. Imports, Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of Am., LLC, 50 Va. App. 395, 407 (2007) (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993)).

2020“The mandate rule, itself an application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, forecloses further litigation of ‘issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Virginia Imports, Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of Am., LLC, 50 Va. App. 395, 407 (2007) (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993)).

2024Belmont Glen argues that “at worst,” the Supreme Court’s holding could be understood to have “implicitly decided that the [August] 2014 Declaration governed Belmont Glen and its owners when it issued its opinion.” Belmont Glen asserts that “the mandate rule dictates that on remand the [circuit] court is not at liberty to discredit the [Supreme Court’s] resolution of that issue or to force the parties to relitigate such issue in the future.” “A trial judge is bound by a decision and mandate from [an appellate court], unless [the court] acted outside [its] jurisdiction.” Rowe v. Rowe, 33 Va. App

2007When a case is remanded to a trial court from an appellate court, the refusal of the trial court to follow the appellate court mandate constitutes reversible error.” Rowe v. Rowe, 33 Va.App. 250, 258 , 532 S.E.2d 908, 912 (2000). 3 The mandate rule, itself an application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, forecloses further litigation of “issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.” United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir.1993).

2023“While a trial court must obey ‘both the letter and spirit’ of an appellate mandate, the mandate rule only precludes the trial court from considering issues that ‘the mandate laid at rest.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he rule is ‘merely a “specific application of the law of the case doctrine,”’ which has the effect of foreclosing ‘relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Id. (quoting Powell, 267 Va. at 128 ).

2023“While a trial court must obey ‘both the letter and spirit’ of an appellate mandate, the mandate rule only precludes the trial court from considering issues that ‘the mandate laid at rest.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he rule is ‘merely a “specific application of the law of the case doctrine,”’ which has the effect of foreclosing ‘relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Id. (quoting Powell, 267 Va. at 128 ).

2011The mandate rule is “merely a ‘specific application *231 of the law of the case doctrine/ [and] in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it compels compliance on remand with the dictates of a superior court and forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.” United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247, 251 (1st Cir.1993)).

2004The mandate rule “is merely a ‘specific application of the law of the case doctrine,’ [and] in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it compels compliance on remand with the dictates of a superior court and forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.” United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247, 251 (1st Cir. 1993)).

2025P’ship v. Riese, 356 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 2004) (“We review de novo . . . whether a post-mandate judgment of a district -5- court contravenes the mandate rule, or whether the mandate has been ‘scrupulously and fully carried out.’” (quoting 2A Fed.