law of the case doctrine in Virgin Islands

2017Since we have authority to review each interlocutory order entered prior to a final judgment even if one of those orders was entered by the Appellate Division, see 4 V.I.C. § 32(c) (conferring authority); Hodge v. Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc., 62 V.I. 671, 686 (V.I. 2015) (exercising that authority and reviewing a remand from the Appellate Division), we consider VITA’s challenge to the Superior Court’s application of the law-of-the-case doctrine separately from its challenge to the Appellate Division’s reversal of the Superior Court’s contempt orders. 18 , 19 1.

2017As articulated in this jurisdiction, “[u]nder the law-of-the-case doctrine, ‘when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.’ ” Hodge, 62 V.I. at 688 (quoting Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 , 506, 131 S. Ct. 1229 , 179 L.

2016Indeed, “the Third Circuit has itself held that the very creation of [the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands] constitutes ‘genuinely exceptional circumstances for disregarding the law of the case doctrine’ with respect to prior decisions of the Appellate Division and the Third Circuit, even in cases involving the same parties.” Hughley v. Gov’t of the V.I., 61 V.I. 323, 337 (V.I. 2014) (quoting Hodge v. Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc., 392 Fed.

2016Indeed, “the Third Circuit has itself held that the very creation of [the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands] constitutes ‘genuinely exceptional circumstances for disregarding the law of the case doctrine’ with respect to prior decisions of the Appellate Division and the Third Circuit, even in cases involving the same parties.” Hughley v. Gov't of the V.I., 61 V.I. 323, 337 (V.I. 2014) (quoting Hodge v. Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc., 392 Fed.

2016Indeed, “the Third Circuit has itself held that the very creation of [the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands] constitutes ‘genuinely exceptional circumstances for disregarding the law of the case doctrine’ with respect to prior decisions of the Appellate Division and the Third Circuit, even in cases involving the same parties.” Hughley v. Gov’t of the V.I., 61 V.I. 323, 337 (V.I. 2014) (quoting Hodge v. Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc., 392 Fed.

2016Indeed, “the Third Circuit has itself held that the very creation of [the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands] constitutes ‘genuinely exceptional circumstances for disregarding the law of the case doctrine’ with respect to prior decisions of the Appellate Division and the Third Circuit, even in cases involving the same parties.” Hughley v. Gov't of the V.I., 61 V.I. 323, 337 (V.I. 2014) (quoting Hodge v. Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc., 392 Fed.

2016See, e.g., Powers v. Southland Corp., 4 F.3d 223, 234-35 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Hayman Cash Register Co. v. Sarokin, 669 F.2d 162, 164-170 (3d Cir. 1982) (applying law of the case doctrine to transfer decisions between federal court and state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a)).

2015But cf. Powers v. Southland Corp., 4 F.3d 223, 234 (3d Cir. 1993) (“While the law of the case doctrine places some (discretionary) limitation on the state trial court’s reconsideration of issues decided by the federal trial court, the law of the case doctrine would not limit the state appellate court’s power to review the decision.” (emphasis added)).

2013See United States v. Matthews, 643 F.3d 9, 13 (1st Cir. 2011) (the law of the case doctrine “binds a successor appellate panel in a second appeal in the same case to honor fully the original decision”); Gov’t of the V.I. v. AT & T of the V.I., Inc., 51 V.I. 731, 737 (D.V.I.

2010Courts may, in their discretion, decline to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine where: 1) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and results in manifest injustice; 2) there is new evidence which counsels that the prior decision should be altered; or 3) new law which governs the same subject matter has been enacted or issued. 6 Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. AT&T of the Virgin Islands, Inc., supra. As set forth below, the Court concludes that there is no justification for the invocation of any of the exceptions to the doctrine. 1.

2017See Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2014) (characterizing the law-of-the-case doctrine as a “common-law doctrine”); Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wn.2d 1 , 414 P.2d 1013 , 1014 (1966) (same).

2017See Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2014) (characterizing the law-of-the-case doctrine as a “common-law doctrine”); Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wn.2d 1 , 414 P.2d 1013 , 1014 (1966) (same).

2017See Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2014) (characterizing the law-of-the-case doctrine as a “common-law doctrine”); Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wn.2d 1 , 414 P.2d 1013 , 1014 (1966) (same).

2017See Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2014) (characterizing the law-of-the-case doctrine as a “common-law doctrine”); Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wn.2d 1 , 414 P.2d 1013 , 1014 (1966) (same).

2017Beal, 209 P.3d at 1017 ; accord State v. Wright, 131 A.3d 310, 321 (Del. 2016) (the doctrine promotes “efficiency, finality, stability and respect for the judicial system” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Norris v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins.

2017See Lombardi, 25 A.3d at 1092 (observing that the doctrine ‘“is entirely inapposite where ... in trial court proceedings, the same judge is reconsidering his own interlocutory ruling”); accord Island Tile & Marble, LLC v. Bertrand, 57 V.I. 596, 613-14 (V.I. 2012) (‘“[T]he Superior Court possess[es] the authority ... to modify or set aside [any] order prior to entry of a final judgment.” (citing Moses H.

2017Ed. 2d 318 (1984). “[Generally, the law[-]of[-]the[-]case doctrine is [a doctrine] of appellate procedure,” Scott v. State, 379 Md. 170 , 840 A.2d 715, 723 (2004), that “is grounded in the principle of stare decisis” and “prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in a previous appeal in the same case.” Beal v. Beal, 209 P.3d 1012, 1016-17 (Alaska 2009).

2017Ed. 2d 318 (1984). “[Generally, the law[-]of[-]the[-]case doctrine is [a doctrine] of appellate procedure,” Scott v. State, 379 Md. 170 , 840 A.2d 715, 723 (2004), that “is grounded in the principle of stare decisis” and “prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in a previous appeal in the same case.” Beal v. Beal, 209 P.3d 1012, 1016-17 (Alaska 2009).

2017And although the doctrine is subject to exceptions, see, e.g., Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625 , 173 P.3d 724, 728-29 (2007) (listing three exceptions recognized by federal courts, but observing that some states ‘“have not clearly embraced all of these specific exceptions”); see also State ex rel.

2017And although the doctrine is subject to exceptions, see, e.g., Hsu v. Cty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625 , 173 P.3d 724, 728-29 (2007) (listing three exceptions recognized by federal courts, but observing that some states ‘“have not clearly embraced all of these specific exceptions”); see also State ex rel.

2017Ed. 2d 318 (1984). “[Generally, the law[-]of[-]the[-]case doctrine is [a doctrine] of appellate procedure,” Scott v. State, 379 Md. 170 , 840 A.2d 715, 723 (2004), that “is grounded in the principle of stare decisis” and “prohibits the reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in a previous appeal in the same case.” Beal v. Beal, 209 P.3d 1012, 1016-17 (Alaska 2009).

2017Beal, 209 P.3d at 1017 ; accord State v. Wright, 131 A.3d 310, 321 (Del. 2016) (the doctrine promotes “efficiency, finality, stability and respect for the judicial system” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Norris v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins.

2017Courts in this jurisdiction have consistently recognized that, under the law-of-the-case doctrine, “a court is loath to revisit legal issues which it previously decided in the same case.” People v. Miller, 53 V.I. 162, 168 (V.I.

2017See Lombardi, 25 A.3d at 1092 (observing that the doctrine ‘“is entirely inapposite where ... in trial court proceedings, the same judge is reconsidering his own interlocutory ruling”); accord Island Tile & Marble, LLC v. Bertrand, 57 V.I. 596, 613-14 (V.I. 2012) (‘“[T]he Superior Court possess[es] the authority ... to modify or set aside [any] order prior to entry of a final judgment.” (citing Moses H.

2017See Gov’t Guarantee Fund v. Hyatt Corp., 166 F.R.D. 321 , 34 V.I. 257 , 268 n.17 (D.V.I. 1996) (“The doctrine of the law of the case dictates that ‘when a court decides upon a rule of law, that rule should continue to govern the same issue in subsequent stages in the litigation.’ ” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2017See Gov’t Guarantee Fund v. Hyatt Corp., 166 F.R.D. 321 , 34 V.I. 257 , 268 n.17 (D.V.I. 1996) (“The doctrine of the law of the case dictates that ‘when a court decides upon a rule of law, that rule should continue to govern the same issue in subsequent stages in the litigation.’ ” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2017See Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2014) (characterizing the law-of-the-case doctrine as a “common-law doctrine”); Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wn.2d 1 , 414 P.2d 1013 , 1014 (1966) (same).

2017See Stoufflet v. United States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1241 (11th Cir. 2014) (characterizing the law-of-the-case doctrine as a “common-law doctrine”); Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Redd, 630 F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wn.2d 1 , 414 P.2d 1013 , 1014 (1966) (same).

2017Pruitt v. Native Wholesale Supply, 2014 OK 49 , 338 P.3d 613, 620 (2014) (observing only one exception to the doctrine), a litigant cannot invoke the law-of-the-case doctrine to preclude a trial judge from reconsidering his or her own ruling.

2017Pruitt v. Native Wholesale Supply, 2014 OK 49 , 338 P.3d 613, 620 (2014) (observing only one exception to the doctrine), a litigant cannot invoke the law-of-the-case doctrine to preclude a trial judge from reconsidering his or her own ruling.

2017But the law-of-the-case doctrine is never applied ‘“to prevent a higher court from examining the correctness of the ruling of an intermediate appellate court.” Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, 925 So. 2d 1202, 1207 (La. 2006).

2016See, e.g., Powers v. Southland Corp., 4 F.3d 223, 234-35 (3d Cir. 1993); see also Hayman Cash Register Co. v. Sarokin, 669 F.2d 162, 164-170 (3d Cir. 1982) (applying law of the case doctrine to transfer decisions between federal court and state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a)).

2015Bank of Commerce, 948 So. 2d 1051, 1057 (La. 2006); see Ehleiter v. Grapetree Shores, Inc., 482 F.3d 207, 214 , 48 V.I. 1034 (3d Cir. 2007) (concluding that “[w]hile the Appellate Division would likely be bound by ... the law of the case doctrine” in a subsequent appeal after remanding to the Superior Court, “nothing would preclude [the Third Circuit] from considering the merits” of issues raised in both appeals); see also Mercer v. Theriot, 311 U.S. 152, 153 , 84 S. Ct. 1157 , 12 L.

2015Bank of Commerce, 948 So. 2d 1051, 1057 (La. 2006); see Ehleiter v. Grapetree Shores, Inc., 482 F.3d 207, 214 , 48 V.I. 1034 (3d Cir. 2007) (concluding that “[w]hile the Appellate Division would likely be bound by ... the law of the case doctrine” in a subsequent appeal after remanding to the Superior Court, “nothing would preclude [the Third Circuit] from considering the merits” of issues raised in both appeals); see also Mercer v. Theriot, 311 U.S. 152, 153 , 84 S. Ct. 1157 , 12 L.

2015Bank of Commerce, 948 So. 2d 1051, 1057 (La. 2006); see Ehleiter v. Grapetree Shores, Inc., 482 F.3d 207, 214 , 48 V.I. 1034 (3d Cir. 2007) (concluding that “[w]hile the Appellate Division would likely be bound by ... the law of the case doctrine” in a subsequent appeal after remanding to the Superior Court, “nothing would preclude [the Third Circuit] from considering the merits” of issues raised in both appeals); see also Mercer v. Theriot, 311 U.S. 152, 153 , 84 S. Ct. 1157 , 12 L.

2015See also Jones v. Jerome, 62 V.I. 160 , 163 n.2 (V.I.