law of the case doctrine in Texas

2025Id. § 39.03(a)(1). 8 The law of the case doctrine “provides that a decision of a court of last resort on a question of law will govern a case throughout its subsequent stages.” City of Houston v. Jackson, 192 S.W.3d 764, 769 (Tex. 2006) (citing Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986)).

2024See Graham, 2020 WL 3478661 , at *5; see also Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986) (“By narrowing the issues in successive stages of the litigation, the law of the case doctrine is intended to achieve uniformity of decision as well as judicial economy and efficiency.”).

2026Although the law of the case doctrine provides us with discretion to reconsider our own decisions on matters of law, see Briscoe, 102 S.W.3d at 716–17, we cannot do so with respect to decisions that have been made by the supreme court.

2025“Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a court of appeals is ordinarily bound by its initial decision if there is a subsequent appeal in the same case.” Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex. 2003) (emphasis added).

2024Wice, because the law-of-the-case doctrine prohibits reconsideration of the special prosecutors’ claim for payment of attorney’s fees.21 21 Collin County Judge Hill, Collin County Commissioner Fletcher, Collin County Commission Williams, Collin County Commissioner Hale, and Collin County Commissioner Webb also assert that the “mandate rule” requires the same result, 10 The law of the case doctrine generally “provides that an appellate court’s resolution of a question of law in a previous appeal of the same case will govern the disposition of the same issue if it is raised in any subsequent app

2024Wice, because the law-of-the-case doctrine prohibits reconsideration of the special prosecutors’ claim for payment of attorney’s fees.21 21 Collin County Judge Hill, Collin County Commissioner Fletcher, Collin County Commission Williams, Collin County Commissioner Hale, and Collin County Commissioner Webb also assert that the “mandate rule” requires the same result, 10 The law of the case doctrine generally “provides that an appellate court’s resolution of a question of law in a previous appeal of the same case will govern the disposition of the same issue if it is raised in any subsequent app

2025Id. § 39.03(a)(1). 8 The law of the case doctrine “provides that a decision of a court of last resort on a question of law will govern a case throughout its subsequent stages.” City of Houston v. Jackson, 192 S.W.3d 764, 769 (Tex. 2006) (citing Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986)).

2024BCA responds that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply since the record includes additional evidence. 21 A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law “The ‘law of the case’ doctrine provides that a decision of a court of last resort on a question of law will govern a case throughout its subsequent stages.” City of Houston v. Jackson, 192 S.W.3d 764, 769 (Tex. 2006) (citing Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986)).

2026See, e.g., Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177, 182 (Tex. 2012); Hjella v. Red McCombs Motors, Ltd., No. 04-23-00145-CV, 2024 WL 3954214 , at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 28, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (The doctrine of the law of the case “may apply even when the appeal does not reach the court of last resort.”).

2024See Paradigm Oil, 372 S.W.3d at 182–83 (noting that while denying a petition for review does not invoke the law-of-the-case doctrine in its court, the decision by the court of appeals becomes the law of the case in the trial court and the court of appeals if the Texas Supreme Court denies a petition for review); Shiloh Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Ward, 608 S.W.3d 337 , 341 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied) (explaining when a court of appeals remands case for further proceedings, the issues decided by the court of appeals will be regarded as the law of the case).

2024Thus, under the law of the case doctrine, which applies to criminal cases, Ware v. State, 736 S.W.2d 700, 701 (Tex. Crim.

2021Further, the law-of-the-case doctrine applies to different appeals “when the facts and legal issues in a case on appeal are virtually identical with those in a previous appeal in which the legal issues were resolved.” Ware, 736 S.W.2d at 701 ; see Donaldson, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 7429 , 5 at *8; Aliu v. State, No. 05-10-00787-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6583 , at *4 (Tex. App.— Dallas Aug. 18, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

2019Similar to stare decisis, the law-of-the-case doctrine is the “principle under which questions of law decided on appeal to a court of last resort will govern the case throughout its subsequent stages.” Loram Maint. of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, 210 S.W.3d 593, 596 (Tex. 2006); see Entergy Corp. v. Jenkins, 469 S.W.3d 330, 336 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied).

2019Similar to stare decisis, the law-of-the-case doctrine is the “principle under which questions of law decided on appeal to a court of last resort will govern the case throughout its subsequent stages.” Loram Maint. of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, 210 S.W.3d 593, 596 (Tex. 2006); see Entergy Corp. v. Jenkins, 469 S.W.3d 330, 336 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied).

2016The law of the case doctrine provides that “the initial determination of questions of law will be held to govern the case throughout its subsequent stages.” Trevino v. Turcotte, 564 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tex.1978); see also Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex.2003); In re Estate of Chavana, 993 S.W.2d 311, 314-15 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

2016Because we already addressed this issue in one of Aguilar’s previous appeals, In re Estate of Aguilar, No. 04-13-00038-CV, 2014 WL 667516 , at *7 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2014, pet. denied) (mem.op.), the law of the case doctrine applies, Turcotte, 564 S.W.2d at 685 , and we overrule Aguilar’s issue asserting the Bexar County Probate Court’s sanctions order was an erroneous imposi-, tion of death penalty sanctions. 2.

2019See Fuelberg v. State, 410 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.) (“Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a court of appeals is ordinarily bound by its initial decision on a question of law if there is a subsequent appeal in the same case.” (quoting Dearing, 240 S.W.3d at 348 )).

2015"Under the law-of- the-case doctrine, a court of appeals is ordinarily bound by its initial decision on a question oflaw if there is a subsequent appeal in the same case." Dearing, 240 S.W.3d at 348 .

2024See Jenkins, 469 S.W.3d at 337 ; see also Briscoe, 102 S.W.3d at 717 (“Because application of the law of the case doctrine is discretionary, the court of appeals had the authority to re-visit its jurisdictional decision.”).

2023Entergy Corp. v. Jenkins, 469 S.W.3d 330, 337 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g); accord Briscoe, 102 S.W.3d at 717 (“Because application of the law of the case doctrine is discretionary, the court of appeals had the authority to re-visit its jurisdictional decision.”).

2016Hudson, 711 S.W.2d at 630 ; Dessommes v. Dessommes, 543 S.W.2d 165, 169 (Tex. Civ.

2012Dessommes v. Dessommes, 543 S.W.2d 165, 169 (Tex. Civ.

2025The law of the case doctrine generally provides that “an appellate court’s resolution of questions of law in a previous appeal are binding in subsequent appeals concerning the same issue.” State v. Swearingen, 424 S.W.3d 32, 36 (Tex. Crim.

2024Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, “an appellate court’s resolution of questions of law in a previous appeal are binding in subsequent appeals concerning the same issue,” and “when the facts and legal issues are virtually identical, they should be controlled by an appellate court’s previous resolution.” State v. Swearingen, 424 S.W.3d 32, 36 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Tomaszewicz, 2002 WL 397003 , at *3; see also Pitman v. Lightfoot, 937 S.W.2d 496, 512-13 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied)(law of the case does not necessarily apply when issues or facts presented in successive appeals are not substantially the same)(citing Barrows v. Ezer, 624 S.W.2d 613, 617 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ)).

2015Flood Control Dist. v. Kerr, 445 S.W.3d 242, 252-53 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013), aff’d, 499 S.W.3d 793, 802-03 (2016) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine did not apply, where a subsequent appeal of the same case involved different parties and different facts); Pitman v. Lightfoot, 937 S.W.2d 496, 513 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied) (noting that the appellate court’s prior opinion that limitations barred suit against certain shareholders was not law of the case in a subsequent appeal regarding other shareholders), In Hooks, the Supreme Court did not address the facts

2024App. 1999) (internal quotations omitted); see also Ex parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d 850 , 852 n.7 (Tex. Crim.

2024App. 1999) (internal quotations omitted); see also Ex parte Schuessler, 846 S.W.2d 850 , 852 n.7 (Tex. Crim.

2015App. 1999); Ex parte Granger, 850 S.W.2d 513, 516 (Tex. Crim.

2008The law-of-the-case doctrine is not required by statute or constitution. -3- Ex parte Granger, 850 S.W.2d 513, 516 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993).

2025See, e.g., Roman v. Ramirez, 573 S.W.3d 341, 348 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, pet. denied) (“Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a court of appeals is ordinarily bound by its initial decision if there is a subsequent appeal in the same case.”); TCI Luna Ventures, LLC v. Branch Banking & Tr.

2023See, e.g., Roman v. Ramirez, 573 S.W.3d 341, 348 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, pet. denied) (collecting cases holding that “a legal issue actually resolved in a mandamus action becomes [the law of the case] in subsequent proceedings in the same case”); In re B.G.D., 351 S.W.3d 131, 141 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (holding that the law of the case doctrine “may be applied when an issue has been resolved on the merits in a prior mandamus proceeding”); B S P Mktg., Inc. v. Standard Waste Sys., Ltd., No. 05-03-00518-CV, 2004 WL 119235 , at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 27, 2004, no pet.) (mem. o

2024See Entergy Corp. v. Jenkins, 469 S.W.3d 330, 337 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied); Johnson v. State, 171 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d); LeBlanc v. State, 826 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d).

2024See Entergy Corp. v. Jenkins, 469 S.W.3d 330, 337 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied); Johnson v. State, 171 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d); LeBlanc v. State, 826 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d).

2015In neither the body of its Opinion nor its mandate does the Majority provide for the retrial of any claim Ortiz had for loss of use damages. s Id. ("By narro-wing the issues in successive stages of litigation, the law of the case doctrine is intended to achieve uniformity of decision as well a judicial economy and efficiency."). 6 Lifshutz v. Lifsltutz, 199 S.W.3d 9, 20 (Tex. App. -San Antonio 2006, pet denied) (by upholding the trial court's directed verdict on certain issues, the court of appeals established "law of the caseu on those issues). 7 Id. 'The jury awarded Ortiz $100,000 in loss r

2015In neither the body of its Opinion nor its mandate does the Majority provide for the retrial of any claim Ortiz had for loss of use damages. s Id. ("By narro-wing the issues in successive stages of litigation, the law of the case doctrine is intended to achieve uniformity of decision as well a judicial economy and efficiency."). 6 Lifshutz v. Lifsltutz, 199 S.W.3d 9, 20 (Tex. App. -San Antonio 2006, pet denied) (by upholding the trial court's directed verdict on certain issues, the court of appeals established "law of the caseu on those issues). 7 Id. 'The jury awarded Ortiz $100,000 in loss r

2015Justice Bail Bonds v. Samaniego, 68 S.W.3d 811, 813 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2001, pet. denied).

2015Justice Bail Bonds v. Samaniego, 68 S.W.3d 811, 813 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2001, pet. denied).

2022A bill of review under this statute “may not be filed more than two years after the date of the order or judgment, as applicable.” Id. § 55.251(b). 15 will not be re-examined.” City of Hous. v. Precast Structures, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 331, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g). “[A] reviewing court may apply the law of the case doctrine in a subsequent proceeding if the facts in the later proceeding are ‘so nearly the same [as the earlier proceeding] that they do not materially affect the legal issues involved in the later proceeding.’” In re B.G.D., 351 S.W.3d 131,

2012A reviewing court may apply the law of the case doctrine in a subsequent proceeding if the facts in the later proceeding are ―so nearly the same that they do not materially alter the legal issues involved in the later proceeding.‖ Lawrence v. City of Wichita Falls, 122 S.W.3d 322, 326 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied).

2015See Briscoe, 102 S.W.3d at 717 (“Because application of the law of the case doctrine is discretionary, the court of appeals had the authority to re-visit its jurisdictional decision.”); Harris, 192 S.W.3d at 171 (“Application of the [law of the case] doctrine is flexible and must be left to the discretion of the court and determined according to the circumstances of the case.”).

2009Cf. City of Houston v. Harris, 192 S.W.3d 167, 171-72 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (refusing to apply the law of the case doctrine to city’s second plea to the jurisdiction because first plea challenged pleadings, while second plea challenged factual basis for jurisdiction by presenting evidence).

2022A bill of review under this statute “may not be filed more than two years after the date of the order or judgment, as applicable.” Id. § 55.251(b). 15 will not be re-examined.” City of Hous. v. Precast Structures, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 331, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g). “[A] reviewing court may apply the law of the case doctrine in a subsequent proceeding if the facts in the later proceeding are ‘so nearly the same [as the earlier proceeding] that they do not materially affect the legal issues involved in the later proceeding.’” In re B.G.D., 351 S.W.3d 131,

2021“Where a losing party fails to avail itself of an appeal in the court of last resort but allows the case to be remanded for further proceedings, the points decided by the court of appeals will be regarded as the law of the case and will not be reexamined.” Id. (citing City of Houston v. Precast Structures, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 331, 337 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied)); see also State v. Swearingen, 478 S.W.3d 716, 720 (Tex. Crim.

2024“Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to a court’s power to decide a case.” Jenkins, 469 S.W.3d at 336 (quoting City of Houston v. Rhule, 417 S.W.3d 440, 442 (Tex. 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023“Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to a court’s power to decide a case.” Entergy Corp., 469 S.W.3d at 336 (quoting City of Houston v. Rhule, 417 S.W.3d 440 , 442 9 (Tex. 2013) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2015The record, however, fails to Barrows, 624 S.W.2d at 617 ; Kropp, 526 S.W.2d at 285 . contain a statement of facts so that we cannot determine if Missouri K. & T.

1993We agree. *98 The doctrine of law of the case is the “principle under which the determination of law questions will generally be held to govern the case throughout all of its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort.” Kropp, 526 S.W.2d at 285 .

2021See Tomaszewicz, 2002 WL 397003 , at *3; see also Pitman v. Lightfoot, 937 S.W.2d 496, 512-13 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied)(law of the case does not necessarily apply when issues or facts presented in successive appeals are not substantially the same)(citing Barrows v. Ezer, 624 S.W.2d 613, 617 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ)).

2015The record, however, fails to Barrows, 624 S.W.2d at 617 ; Kropp, 526 S.W.2d at 285 . contain a statement of facts so that we cannot determine if Missouri K. & T.

2016The law of the case doctrine provides that “the initial determination of questions of law will be held to govern the case throughout its subsequent stages.” Trevino v. Turcotte, 564 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tex.1978); see also Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex.2003); In re Estate of Chavana, 993 S.W.2d 311, 314-15 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.).

2013Boat Works, Inc. v. Tesoro Petroleum Cos. , Inc., 217 S.W.3d 653, 662 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (declining to apply the law of the case doctrine to a statement that was not necessary to the determination of the case); In re Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s , 18 S.W.3d 867, 870 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.) (same); Chavana , 993 S.W.2d at 315 ; Huckabay v. Irving Hosp.