controlling legal rule in Georgia

2016Accordingly, the law of the case rule applies “only when the same issue has been actually litigated and decided.” State v. Mizell, 288 Ga. 474, 478 (3) ( 705 SE2d 154 ) (2010) (citations omitted).

2016Accordingly, the law of the case rule applies “only when the same issue has been actually litigated and decided.” State v. Mizell, 288 Ga. 474, 478 (3) ( 705 SE2d 154 ) (2010) (citations omitted).

2016“The law of the case’ has been defined as a controlling legal rule established by a previous decision between the same parties in the same case.” Modern Roofing & Metal Works v. Owen, 174 Ga. App. 875, 875 (1) ( 332 SE2d 14 ) (1985) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2016“The law of the case’ has been defined as a controlling legal rule established by a previous decision between the same parties in the same case.” Modern Roofing & Metal Works v. Owen, 174 Ga. App. 875, 875 (1) ( 332 SE2d 14 ) (1985) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2013“The power of a court to vacate an arbitration award has been severely limited in order not to frustrate the legislative purpose of avoiding litigation by resort to arbitration.” (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Hansen & Hansen Enterprises v. SCSJ Enterprises, 299 Ga. App. 469, 470 ( 682 SE2d 652 ) (2009).

2013“The power of a court to vacate an arbitration award has been severely limited in order not to frustrate the legislative purpose of avoiding litigation by resort to arbitration.” (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Hansen & Hansen Enterprises v. SCSJ Enterprises, 299 Ga. App. 469, 470 ( 682 SE2d 652 ) (2009).

1989First, “[t]he ‘law of the case’ has been defined as a controlling legal rule established by a previous decision between the same parties in the same case. [Cit.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Bradley v. Tattnall Bank, 170 Ga. App. 821, 822 (1) ( 318 SE2d 657 ) (1984).

1989First, “[t]he ‘law of the case’ has been defined as a controlling legal rule established by a previous decision between the same parties in the same case. [Cit.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Bradley v. Tattnall Bank, 170 Ga. App. 821, 822 (1) ( 318 SE2d 657 ) (1984).

2020The State cites that, after vacating as void Rice’s initial 7 See Pierce, 294 Ga. at 843-844 (1); Martinez-Chavez, 352 Ga. App. at 142, 144-145 (2); Hanh, 338 Ga. App. at 499 ; Franks, 323 Ga. App. at 814 ; Kaiser, 285 Ga. App. at 66 (1); see also Hanna, 305 Ga. at 106 (3); Pope, 301 Ga. at 531-532 . 9 sentences, Rice I remanded the case to the trial court with direction that Rice be resentenced. “[T]he ‘law of the case’ has been defined as a controlling legal rule established by a previous decision between the same parties in the same case.” (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted; empha

2020Pretermitting whether the cited procedural directive included in Rice I amounted to such a “controlling legal rule,”8 we conclude that the State’s position is unavailing because “[a]n exception [to the ‘law of the case’ rule] exists where the evidentiary posture of the case changes in the trial court after the appellate court decision.” IH Riverdale v. McChesney Capital Partners, 292 Ga. App. 841, 843 ( 666 SE2d 8 ) (2008).

2020Pretermitting whether the cited procedural directive included in Rice I amounted to such a “controlling legal rule,”8 we conclude that the State’s position is unavailing because “[a]n exception [to the ‘law of the case’ rule] exists where the evidentiary posture of the case changes in the trial court after the appellate court decision.” IH Riverdale v. McChesney Capital Partners, 292 Ga. App. 841, 843 ( 666 SE2d 8 ) (2008).

2020The State cites that, after vacating as void Rice’s initial 7 See Pierce, 294 Ga. at 843-844 (1); Martinez-Chavez, 352 Ga. App. at 142, 144-145 (2); Hanh, 338 Ga. App. at 499 ; Franks, 323 Ga. App. at 814 ; Kaiser, 285 Ga. App. at 66 (1); see also Hanna, 305 Ga. at 106 (3); Pope, 301 Ga. at 531-532 . 9 sentences, Rice I remanded the case to the trial court with direction that Rice be resentenced. “[T]he ‘law of the case’ has been defined as a controlling legal rule established by a previous decision between the same parties in the same case.” (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted; empha

2020The State cites that, after vacating as void Rice’s initial 7 See Pierce, 294 Ga. at 843-844 (1); Martinez-Chavez, 352 Ga. App. at 142, 144-145 (2); Hanh, 338 Ga. App. at 499 ; Franks, 323 Ga. App. at 814 ; Kaiser, 285 Ga. App. at 66 (1); see also Hanna, 305 Ga. at 106 (3); Pope, 301 Ga. at 531-532 . 9 sentences, Rice I remanded the case to the trial court with direction that Rice be resentenced. “[T]he ‘law of the case’ has been defined as a controlling legal rule established by a previous decision between the same parties in the same case.” (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted; empha

2020The State cites that, after vacating as void Rice’s initial 7 See Pierce, 294 Ga. at 843-844 (1); Martinez-Chavez, 352 Ga. App. at 142, 144-145 (2); Hanh, 338 Ga. App. at 499 ; Franks, 323 Ga. App. at 814 ; Kaiser, 285 Ga. App. at 66 (1); see also Hanna, 305 Ga. at 106 (3); Pope, 301 Ga. at 531-532 . 9 sentences, Rice I remanded the case to the trial court with direction that Rice be resentenced. “[T]he ‘law of the case’ has been defined as a controlling legal rule established by a previous decision between the same parties in the same case.” (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted; empha

2020The State cites that, after vacating as void Rice’s initial 7 See Pierce, 294 Ga. at 843-844 (1); Martinez-Chavez, 352 Ga. App. at 142, 144-145 (2); Hanh, 338 Ga. App. at 499 ; Franks, 323 Ga. App. at 814 ; Kaiser, 285 Ga. App. at 66 (1); see also Hanna, 305 Ga. at 106 (3); Pope, 301 Ga. at 531-532 . 9 sentences, Rice I remanded the case to the trial court with direction that Rice be resentenced. “[T]he ‘law of the case’ has been defined as a controlling legal rule established by a previous decision between the same parties in the same case.” (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted; empha

2015Id. 3 At the hearing on Talbot’s motion for leave to file its counterclaim, the trial court stated the controlling legal principle as follows: “compulsory counterclaims may not be added by amendment where the defendant has knowledge of the claims at the time the defensive pleadings were prepared and filed.” 4 The trial court found that Talbot did have knowledge of its counterclaim at the time it filed its answer and denied the motion for leave to amend.

2015Talbot contends, because the failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim can result in the loss of that claim forever, justice requires a trial court to grant a defendant leave to add a compulsory counterclaim if the plaintiff makes no showing of prejudice from the proposed amendment, citing Boyd v. JohnGalt Holdings, LLC, 294 Ga. at 641 (1).

2005(Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Wintker, 223 Ga. App. 65, 66 ( 476 SE2d 835 ) (1996).

2005(Citations and punctuation omitted.) State v. Wintker, 223 Ga. App. 65, 66 ( 476 SE2d 835 ) (1996).

2002See San Martine Compania De Navegacion v. Saguenay Terminals Ltd., 293 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir.1961) (applying federal law).

1991If it appears that his bargaining capacity was not significantly greater than that of a mere employee, then the covenant should be treated like a covenant ancillary to an employment contract, and ‘(a)s such, it should be enforced as written or not at all.’ [Cit.]” White v. Fletcher/Mayo/Assoc., 251 Ga. 203, 208 ( 303 SE2d 746 ) (1983).

1991If it appears that his bargaining capacity was not significantly greater than that of a mere employee, then the covenant should be treated like a covenant ancillary to an employment contract, and ‘(a)s such, it should be enforced as written or not at all.’ [Cit.]” White v. Fletcher/Mayo/Assoc., 251 Ga. 203, 208 ( 303 SE2d 746 ) (1983).

1985However, the principle only establishes the law of the case in its then existing evidentiary posture. “ ‘When a case is brought to this court ... , all questions as to pleadings and the effect of evidence adjudicated by this court are binding as the law of the case on this court and ... in the court below, unless additional *876 pleadings and evidence prevail to change such adjudications.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) Monroe Motor Express v. Jackson, 76 Ga. App. 280, 281 ( 45 SE2d 445 ) (1947). “ ‘[I]n the absence of statute the phrase, “law of the case,” as applied to the effect of previous orders

1985However, the principle only establishes the law of the case in its then existing evidentiary posture. “ ‘When a case is brought to this court ... , all questions as to pleadings and the effect of evidence adjudicated by this court are binding as the law of the case on this court and ... in the court below, unless additional *876 pleadings and evidence prevail to change such adjudications.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) Monroe Motor Express v. Jackson, 76 Ga. App. 280, 281 ( 45 SE2d 445 ) (1947). “ ‘[I]n the absence of statute the phrase, “law of the case,” as applied to the effect of previous orders