law of the case doctrine in Alabama

2017According to the doctrine of the law of the case, “whatever is once established between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of that case, whether or not correct on general principles, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case.” Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2d 922, 924 (Ala. 1987).’ “Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d at 341 .

2016According to the doctrine of the law of the case, ^whatever is once established between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of that case, whether or not correct on general principles, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the ease.’ Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2d 922, 924 (Ala. 1987).” Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d at 341 .

2018Bagley v. Creekside Motors, Inc. , 913 So.2d 441 (Ala. 2005), our supreme court observed that "the doctrine of the law of the case 'merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided ....' " 913 So.2d at 445 (quoting Messenger v. Anderson , 225 U.S. 436 , 444, 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) ).

2018Bagley v. Creekside Motors, Inc. , 913 So.2d 441 (Ala. 2005), our supreme court observed that "the doctrine of the law of the case 'merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided ....' " 913 So.2d at 445 (quoting Messenger v. Anderson , 225 U.S. 436 , 444, 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) ).

2017According to the doctrine of the law of the case, “whatever is once established between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of that case, whether or not correct on general principles, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case.” Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2d 922, 924 (Ala. 1987).’ “Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d at 341 .

2016According to the doctrine of the law of the case, ^whatever is once established between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of that case, whether or not correct on general principles, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the ease.’ Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2d 922, 924 (Ala. 1987).” Ex parte S.T.S., 806 So.2d at 341 .

2017The law-of-the-case doctrine provides "that on remand the issues decided by an appellate court become the 'law of the case,' and that the trial court must comply with the appellate court's mandate." Gray v. Reynolds , 553 So.2d 79 , 81 (Ala. 1989).

2017The law-of-the-case doctrine provides "that on remand the issues decided by an appellate court become the 'law of the case,' and that the trial court must comply with the appellate court's mandate." Gray v. Reynolds , 553 So.2d 79 , 81 (Ala. 1989).

2018Put another way, our determination on this matter is now the law of the case. " 'Under the law of the case doctrine, "[a] party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved by the Court in the first appeal or which would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal." ' " Scrushy v. Tucker , 70 So.3d 289 , 303-04 (Ala. 2011) (quoting Kortum v. Johnson , 786 N.W.2d 702 , 705 (N.D. 2010), quoting in turn State ex rel.

2018Put another way, our determination on this matter is now the law of the case. " 'Under the law of the case doctrine, "[a] party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved by the Court in the first appeal or which would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal." ' " Scrushy v. Tucker , 70 So.3d 289 , 303-04 (Ala. 2011) (quoting Kortum v. Johnson , 786 N.W.2d 702 , 705 (N.D. 2010), quoting in turn State ex rel.

2018Put another way, our determination on this matter is now the law of the case. " 'Under the law of the case doctrine, "[a] party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved by the Court in the first appeal or which would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal." ' " Scrushy v. Tucker , 70 So.3d 289 , 303-04 (Ala. 2011) (quoting Kortum v. Johnson , 786 N.W.2d 702 , 705 (N.D. 2010), quoting in turn State ex rel.

2018Put another way, our determination on this matter is now the law of the case. " 'Under the law of the case doctrine, "[a] party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved by the Court in the first appeal or which would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal." ' " Scrushy v. Tucker , 70 So.3d 289 , 303-04 (Ala. 2011) (quoting Kortum v. Johnson , 786 N.W.2d 702 , 705 (N.D. 2010), quoting in turn State ex rel.

2025App. 2003) (quoting State v. Whirley, 530 So. 2d 861, 863 (Ala. Crim.

2017See State v. Whirley , 530 So.2d 861 (Ala. Crim.

2014The law-of-the-case doctrine may be disregarded if the court is convinced its prior decision was clearly erroneous or there has been an intervening change in the law.... ’ “39 So.3d at 1038.” Martin v. Cash Express, Inc., 60 So.3d 236, 249 (Ala.2010) (some emphasis added).

2014Co. v. Madewell, 920 So.2d 571, 572-73 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), quoting in turn other cases) (emphasis added). ‘ “ ‘The law-of-the-case doctrine provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that rule should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case, thereby hastening an end to litigation by foreclosing the possibility of repeatedly litigating an issue already decided.’ ” ’ Id. (quoting Martin v. Cash Express, Inc., 60 So.3d 236, 249 (Ala.2010), quoting in turn Belcher v. Queen, 39 So.3d 1023, 1038 (Ala.2009)); see also Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2

2018Further, "the law-of-the-case doctrine may be disregarded if the court is convinced its prior decision was clearly erroneous or there has been an intervening change in the law." Belcher v. Queen , 39 So.3d 1023 , 1038 (Ala. 2009).

2018Further, "the law-of-the-case doctrine may be disregarded if the court is convinced its prior decision was clearly erroneous or there has been an intervening change in the law." Belcher v. Queen , 39 So.3d 1023 , 1038 (Ala. 2009).

2013The law-of-the-case doctrine “will not permit the trial court to reverse itself.” Quimby v. Memorial Parks, Inc., 835 So.2d 134, 135 (Ala.2002).

2010The law-of-the-case doctrine “will not permit the trial court to reverse itself.” Quimby v. Memorial Parks, Inc., 835 So.2d 134, 135 (Ala.2002).

2010Regarding the law-of-the-case doctrine, this Court has stated: “We recently discussed the doctrine of the law of the case in Lyons v. Walker Regional Medical Center, Inc., 868 So.2d 1071, 1077 (Ala.2003): “ ‘ “It is well established that on remand the issues decided by an appellate court become the ‘law of the case,’ and that the trial court must comply with the appellate court’s mandate.” Gray v. Reynolds, 553 So.2d 79, 81 (Ala.1989).

2010Regarding the law-of-the-case doctrine, this Court has stated: “We recently discussed the doctrine of the law of the case in Lyons v. Walker Regional Medical Center, Inc., 868 So.2d 1071, 1077 (Ala.2003): “ ‘ “It is well established that on remand the issues decided by an appellate court become the ‘law of the case,’ and that the trial court must comply with the appellate court’s mandate.” Gray v. Reynolds, 553 So.2d 79, 81 (Ala.1989).

2015North Dakota Dep’t of Labor v. Riem ers, 779 N.W.2d 649 (N.D.2010) ...); see also Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) (‘Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court.

2015North Dakota Dep’t of Labor v. Riem ers, 779 N.W.2d 649 (N.D.2010) ...); see also Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458 , 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) (‘Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court.

2014Co. v. Madewell, 920 So.2d 571, 572-73 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), quoting in turn other cases) (emphasis added). ‘ “ ‘The law-of-the-case doctrine provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that rule should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case, thereby hastening an end to litigation by foreclosing the possibility of repeatedly litigating an issue already decided.’ ” ’ Id. (quoting Martin v. Cash Express, Inc., 60 So.3d 236, 249 (Ala.2010), quoting in turn Belcher v. Queen, 39 So.3d 1023, 1038 (Ala.2009)); see also Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2

2014Co. v. Madewell, 920 So.2d 571, 572-73 (Ala.Civ.App.2005), quoting in turn other cases) (emphasis added). ‘ “ ‘The law-of-the-case doctrine provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that rule should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case, thereby hastening an end to litigation by foreclosing the possibility of repeatedly litigating an issue already decided.’ ” ’ Id. (quoting Martin v. Cash Express, Inc., 60 So.3d 236, 249 (Ala.2010), quoting in turn Belcher v. Queen, 39 So.3d 1023, 1038 (Ala.2009)); see also Blumberg v. Touche Ross & Co., 514 So.2

2018Bagley v. Creekside Motors, Inc. , 913 So.2d 441 (Ala. 2005), our supreme court observed that "the doctrine of the law of the case 'merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided ....' " 913 So.2d at 445 (quoting Messenger v. Anderson , 225 U.S. 436 , 444, 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) ).

2018Bagley v. Creekside Motors, Inc. , 913 So.2d 441 (Ala. 2005), our supreme court observed that "the doctrine of the law of the case 'merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided ....' " 913 So.2d at 445 (quoting Messenger v. Anderson , 225 U.S. 436 , 444, 32 S.Ct. 739 , 56 L.Ed. 1152 (1912) ).

2014Bagley v. Creek-side Motors, Inc., 913 So.2d 441, 445 (Ala.2005)]).’” G.E.A. v. D.B.A, 920 So.2d 1110, 1115 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).” J.K.L.B.

2007Bagley v. Creekside Motors, Inc., 913 So.2d 441, 445 (Ala.2005)]).'" G.E.A. v. D.B.A., 920 So.2d 1110, 1115 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).

2014See State v. Whirley, 530 So.2d 861 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), rev’d on other grounds, 530 So.2d 865 (Ala.1988); Callahan v. State, 767 So.2d 380 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); Murphy v. FDIC, supra; United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556 (11th Cir.1997); Heathcoat v. Potts, 905 F.2d 367 (11th Cir.1990).” 789 So.2d at 846 n. 4 (emphasis added).

2001See State v. Whirley, 530 So.2d 861 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), rev'd on other grounds, 530 So.2d 865 (Ala.1988); Callahan v. State, 767 So.2d 380 (Ala.Crim.

2013The law-of-the-case doctrine is ‘designed to avoid repeated litigation over an issue that has already been decided.’ Williams v. Williams, 91 So.3d 56, 62 (Ala.Civ.App.2012).” Davis v. Blaclcstock, [Ms. 2111244, April 5, 2013] - So.3d -, - (Ala.Civ.App. 2013).

2013The law-of-the-case doctrine is “designed to avoid repeated litigation over an issue that has already been decided.” Williams v. Williams, 91 So.3d 56, 62 (Ala.Civ.App. 2012).

2011We have further “applied the law-of-the-case doctrine as a bar to subsequent appeals regarding the same issue.” Bessemer Bd. of Educ. v. Tucker, 999 So.2d 957, 960 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (citing Robbins v. Sanders, 927 So.2d 777, 784 (Ala.2005)).

2011Bessemer Bd. of Educ. v. Tucker, 999 So.2d 957, 960-61 (Ala.Civ.App.2008). .

2011We have further “applied the law-of-the-case doctrine as a bar to subsequent appeals regarding the same issue.” Bessemer Bd. of Educ. v. Tucker, 999 So.2d 957, 960 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (citing Robbins v. Sanders, 927 So.2d 777, 784 (Ala.2005)).

2008See, e.g., Robbins v. Sanders, 927 So.2d 777, 784 (Ala.2005)(“0ur discussion and determination of these issues in [the first appeal] foreclose their attempted resurrection by Robbins on this appeal, because of the bar created by the doctrine of the law of the case.”).

2018Application of the law-of-the-case doctrine is discretionary rather than mandatory, Ex parte Discount Foods, Inc. , 789 So.2d 842 , 846 n. 4 (Ala. 2001), and there are exceptions to the doctrine.

2018Application of the law-of-the-case doctrine is discretionary rather than mandatory, Ex parte Discount Foods, Inc. , 789 So.2d 842 , 846 n. 4 (Ala. 2001), and there are exceptions to the doctrine.

2017App. 2003), this Court recognized the following summation of the doctrine by the Florida Supreme Court: " 'Generally, under the doctrine of the law of the case, "all questions of law which have been decided by the highest appellate court become the law of the case which must be followed in subsequent proceedings, both in the lower and appellate courts." Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Department of Revenue , 452 So.2d 550 , 552 (Fla. 1984).

2003As the Florida Supreme Court so aptly stated in State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715 (Fla.1997): “Generally, under the doctrine of the law of the case, ‘all questions of law which have been decided by the highest appellate court become the law of the case which must be followed in subsequent proceedings, both in the lower and appellate courts.’ Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 452 So.2d 550, 552 (Fla.1984).

2014Poole, 61 So.3d at 273 . “ ‘ “ ‘If, however, an óbservation by the appellate court concerning an issue is premised on a particular set of facts, and the nature of the remand is such that it is permissible and appropriate to consider additional facts relevant to the issue, the law-of-the-case doctrine is inapplicable.

2013Bagley v. Creekside Motors, Inc., 913 So.2d 441, 446 (Ala.2005) (“[T]he doctrine of law of the case ... is inapplicable to this case because we did not, in the original appeal, dispositively decide the issue [now raised].”); Poole v. Prince, 61 So.3d 258, 274 (Ala.2010) (“Because this Court did not definitively address in [the prior appeal] the issue whether a binding contract existed between the parties, the law-of-the-case doctrine does not preclude the trial court’s determination of that issue on remand.”); Lyons v. Walker Reg’l Med.

2013In the motion, Simmons appears to argue that the issues DuBose raises in this appeal are the same as those raised in its first appeal and that the law-of-the-case doctrine bars this appeal. “ ‘ “[UJnder the ‘law of the case’ doctrine, “whatever is once established between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of that case, whether or not correct on general principles,, so long as the facts on which the decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case.’ ” ’ ” Walden v. ES Capital, LLC, 89 So.3d 90, 107 (Ala.2011) (quoting Miller & Miller Constr.

2012“The law-of-the-case doctrine provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that rule should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same ease, thereby hastening an end to litigation by foreclosing the possibility of repeatedly litigating an issue already decided.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).

1996Moreover, the law-of-the-case doctrine “ 'controls the outcome only if the evidence on retrial or rehearing is substantially the same as that upon which the appellate ruling was based.’ " Hull v. State, 607 So.2d 369, 377, note 5 (Ala.Cr.App.1992) (quoting People v. Mattson, 50 Cal.3d 826, 849 , 268 Cal.Rptr. 802, 818 , 789 P.2d 983, 999 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1017 , 111 S.Ct. 591 , 112 L.Ed.2d 595 (1990)).

1996Moreover, the law-of-the-case doctrine “ 'controls the outcome only if the evidence on retrial or rehearing is substantially the same as that upon which the appellate ruling was based.’ " Hull v. State, 607 So.2d 369, 377, note 5 (Ala.Cr.App.1992) (quoting People v. Mattson, 50 Cal.3d 826, 849 , 268 Cal.Rptr. 802, 818 , 789 P.2d 983, 999 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1017 , 111 S.Ct. 591 , 112 L.Ed.2d 595 (1990)).