law of the case doctrine in Arizona

2023That doctrine reflects the “judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.” Powell-Cerkoney, 176 Ariz. at 278 (emphasis added). ¶23 The situation here does not fit perfectly within preclusion principles or the law of the case doctrine.

2023Mortg., LLC, 240 Ariz. 575, ¶ 15 (App. 2016) (law of the case provides that court decision in case is “the law of that case on the issues decided throughout all subsequent proceedings in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts, issues and evidence are substantially the same as those upon which the first decision rested”); Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“The doctrine referred to as ‘law of the case’ describes the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a high

2022Comm’n, 149 Ariz. 480, 482 (1986). ¶6 The law of the case doctrine does not apply if there has been a substantial change in the facts, issues, or evidence; the first appellate decision is erroneous or unjust; the applicable law has changed; the issue was not actually decided; the decision is ambiguous; or the prior decision was not on the merits.

2016Id. at 482-83 , 720 P.2d at 83-84 ; see Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231, 236, ¶ 16 , 62 P.3d 976, 981 (App. 2003) (stating the law of the case doctrine does not prevent a judge from reconsidering nonfinal rulings). ¶ 16 Here, the materiality issue was never decided in the earlier ruling or in this court’s decision in Stauffer .

2021See Hall v. Smith, 214 Ariz. 309, 317 , ¶¶ 28–29 (App. 2007); see also Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“When . . . we apply the doctrine to decisions of the same court, we treat law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.”); Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231, 236 (App. 2003) (noting the law of the case doctrine “does not prevent a judge from reconsidering nonfinal rulings, ‘[n]or does it prevent a different judge, sitting on the same case, from reconsidering the first judge’s pr

2016The doctrine of law of the case is a rule of procedure, not of substance, and does not prevent a court from changing a ruling merely because the court ruled on a question at an earlier stage of the proceedings; “[n]or does it prevent a different judge, sitting on the same case, from reconsidering the first judge’s prior, nonfinal rulings.” State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268, 279 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1035 (1994) (citations omitted).

2017Under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate decision is binding on the points presented in all subsequent proceedings in both trial and appellate courts if “the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first decision rested.” Ziegler v. Superior Court, 134 Ariz. 390, 393 (App. 1982) (citation omitted).

2007III. ¶ 17 “The term ‘law of the case’ is a rule that the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the ease in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first decision rested.” Ziegler v. Superior Court In and For Pima County, 134 Ariz. 390, 393 , 656 P.2d 1251, 1254 (App.1982).

2021See Hall v. Smith, 214 Ariz. 309, 317 , ¶¶ 28–29 (App. 2007); see also Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“When . . . we apply the doctrine to decisions of the same court, we treat law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.”); Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231, 236 (App. 2003) (noting the law of the case doctrine “does not prevent a judge from reconsidering nonfinal rulings, ‘[n]or does it prevent a different judge, sitting on the same case, from reconsidering the first judge’s pr

2016Id. at 482-83 , 720 P.2d at 83-84 ; see Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231, 236, ¶ 16 , 62 P.3d 976, 981 (App. 2003) (stating the law of the case doctrine does not prevent a judge from reconsidering nonfinal rulings). ¶ 16 Here, the materiality issue was never decided in the earlier ruling or in this court’s decision in Stauffer .

1989Additionally, the doctrine of law of the case does not apply when the former decision appears “palpably erroneous.” Sibley v. Jeffreys, 81 Ariz. 272, 277 , 305 P.2d 427, 430 (1956).

1989Additionally, the doctrine of law of the case does not apply when the former decision appears “palpably erroneous.” Sibley v. Jeffreys, 81 Ariz. 272, 277 , 305 P.2d 427, 430 (1956).

2026This is known as the “mandate rule,” Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp., 196 Ariz. 5, ¶ 7 , but has also been referred to under the larger umbrella of the “law of the case” doctrine, Jordan v. Jordan, 132 Ariz. 38, 41 (1982). ¶9 The law of the case doctrine stands for the principle that a legal question ruled upon by the appellate court will not be decided differently on a subsequent appeal in the same case.

1994See, e.g., Dancing Sunshines Lounge v. Industrial Comm’n, 149 Ariz. 480, 483 , 720 P.2d 81, 84 (1986) (law of the case does not apply where “there has been a change in the applicable law”); Jordan v. Jordan, 132 Ariz. 38, 43, 643 P.2d 1008, 1013 (1982) (law of the case doctrine inapplicable “where the policy of the law has been changed, by legislative enactment or decision of a higher court, while the case is still pending resolution”).

2020If he did deny the motion, that ruling was not a final appealable order; thus, the law of the case doctrine as described in King is inapplicable. ¶38 A horizontal appeal “is a request that a second trial judge reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.” Donlann v. Macgurn, 203 Ariz. 380, 385, ¶ 29 (App. 2002) (quotation omitted); see Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“The policy against horizontal appeals . .

2019Id. at 279 (citations omitted). ¶37 Judge Ronan’s denial of the State’s initial motion for summary judgment was not a final, appealable order; thus, the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable except to the extent it encompasses the court’s decision to permit a horizontal appeal, which “is a request that a second trial judge reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.” Donlann v. Macgurn, 203 Ariz. 380, 385, ¶ 29 (App. 2002) (quotation omitted); see Powell-Cerkon

2016As this court has explained, “issues not raised and argued in a first appeal may not be raised later in a second appeal.” Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 206 Ariz. 424, 427, ¶ 11 (App. 2003) (citing Carrillo v. State, 169 Ariz. 126, 132 (App. 1991)).

2007That doctrine is “ ‘the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court.’ ” Jimenez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 206 Ariz. 424, ¶ 12 , 79 P.3d 673, 677 (App.2003), quoting Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 , 860 P.2d 1328, 1331 (App.1993).

2015And “Rule 16.1(d), like the law of the case doctrine, is procedural and applies in the setting of the same case.” Id. at 171 ¶ 9, 91 P.3d at 1014 (emphasis in original); see Ariz. R.Crim.

2015And “Rule 16.1(d), like the law of the case doctrine, is procedural and applies in the setting of the same case.” Id. at 171 ¶ 9, 91 P.3d at 1014 (emphasis in original); see Ariz. R.Crim.

2021Nor does the law of the case doctrine apply to matters “expressly reserved” or to decisions that are “ambiguous and uncertain.” In re Monaghan’s Estate, 71 Ariz. 334, 336 (1951). ¶9 This court’s 2019 decision (rendered by a different panel) addressed a discrete dispute: “whether [the] settlement agreement entered 4 WHILES, et al. v. JONES, et al.

2008The “law of the case” is *490 State v. King, 180 Ariz. 268, 278 , 883 P.2d 1024, 1034 (1994) (quoting In re Monaghan’s Estate, 71 Ariz. 334, 336 , 227 P.2d 227, 228 (1951)). *489 a rule of general application that the decision of an appellate court in a case is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings in the case in both the trial and the appellate courts, and no question necessarily involved and decided on that appeal will be considered on a second appeal or writ of error in the same case, provided the facts and issues are substantially the same a

2004Law of the Case and Rule 16.1(d) ¶ 8 As an initial matter we note that this issue does not implicate the doctrine of the law of the case. "`Law of the case' concerns the practice of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court." Davis v. Davis, 195 Ariz. 158, 162, ¶ 13 , 985 P.2d 643, 647 (App.1999) (quoting Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep't, 177 Ariz. 322, 327 , 868 P.2d 335, 340 (App.1993)) (emphasis added).

2004Law of the Case and Rule 16.1(d) ¶ 8 As an initial matter we note that this issue does not implicate the doctrine of the law of the case. "`Law of the case' concerns the practice of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court." Davis v. Davis, 195 Ariz. 158, 162, ¶ 13 , 985 P.2d 643, 647 (App.1999) (quoting Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep't, 177 Ariz. 322, 327 , 868 P.2d 335, 340 (App.1993)) (emphasis added).

2020If he did deny the motion, that ruling was not a final appealable order; thus, the law of the case doctrine as described in King is inapplicable. ¶38 A horizontal appeal “is a request that a second trial judge reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.” Donlann v. Macgurn, 203 Ariz. 380, 385, ¶ 29 (App. 2002) (quotation omitted); see Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“The policy against horizontal appeals . .

2019Id. at 279 (citations omitted). ¶37 Judge Ronan’s denial of the State’s initial motion for summary judgment was not a final, appealable order; thus, the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable except to the extent it encompasses the court’s decision to permit a horizontal appeal, which “is a request that a second trial judge reconsider the decision of the first trial judge in the same matter, even though no new circumstances have arisen in the interim and no other reason justifies reconsideration.” Donlann v. Macgurn, 203 Ariz. 380, 385, ¶ 29 (App. 2002) (quotation omitted); see Powell-Cerkon

2011See Conant v. Whitney, 190 Ariz. 290, 293-94 , 947 P.2d 864, 867-68 (App.1997) (argument first raised in motion for new trial waived on appeal); cf. Watson Constr.

2011See Conant v. Whitney, 190 Ariz. 290, 293-94 , 947 P.2d 864, 867-68 (App.1997) (argument first raised in motion for new trial waived on appeal); cf. Watson Constr.

2011See Town of Miami v. City of Globe, 195 Ariz. 176, ¶ 8 , 985 P.2d 1035, 1038 (App. 1998). ¶ 10 We therefore turn to the plaintiffs’ primary contention on appeal, which is that the GVR servitudes are invalid because they do not “touch and concern the land.” The plaintiffs support this argument by asserting that the servitudes do not benefit outlying homeowners or increase the value of the land, yet they burden the land with a restriction not shared by neighboring properties.

2011See Town of Miami v. City of Globe, 195 Ariz. 176, ¶ 8 , 985 P.2d 1035, 1038 (App. 1998). ¶ 10 We therefore turn to the plaintiffs’ primary contention on appeal, which is that the GVR servitudes are invalid because they do not “touch and concern the land.” The plaintiffs support this argument by asserting that the servitudes do not benefit outlying homeowners or increase the value of the land, yet they burden the land with a restriction not shared by neighboring properties.

2004Under the law of the case doctrine, “a court acts within its discretion in ‘refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court’ unless ‘an error in the first decision renders it manifestly erroneous or unjust or when a substantial change occurs in essential facts or issues, in evidence, or in the applicable law.’ ” State v. Wilson, 207 Ariz. 12, ¶ 9 , 82 P.3d 797, 800 (App.2004), quoting Powellr-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278, 279 , 860 P.2d 1328, 1331 , 1332 *151 (App.1993).

2004Under the law of the case doctrine, “a court acts within its discretion in ‘refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court’ unless ‘an error in the first decision renders it manifestly erroneous or unjust or when a substantial change occurs in essential facts or issues, in evidence, or in the applicable law.’ ” State v. Wilson, 207 Ariz. 12, ¶ 9 , 82 P.3d 797, 800 (App.2004), quoting Powellr-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278, 279 , 860 P.2d 1328, 1331 , 1332 *151 (App.1993).

1991See Stearns-Roger Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 117 Ariz. 132, 134 , 571 P.2d 278, 280 (App.1976), vacated on other grounds, 117 Ariz. 162 , 571 P.2d 659 (1977); see Black’s Law Dictionary 798 (5th ed. 1979).

1991See Stearns-Roger Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 117 Ariz. 132, 134 , 571 P.2d 278, 280 (App.1976), vacated on other grounds, 117 Ariz. 162 , 571 P.2d 659 (1977); see Black’s Law Dictionary 798 (5th ed. 1979).

1991See Stearns-Roger Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 117 Ariz. 132, 134 , 571 P.2d 278, 280 (App.1976), vacated on other grounds, 117 Ariz. 162 , 571 P.2d 659 (1977); see Black’s Law Dictionary 798 (5th ed. 1979).

1991See Stearns-Roger Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 117 Ariz. 132, 134 , 571 P.2d 278, 280 (App.1976), vacated on other grounds, 117 Ariz. 162 , 571 P.2d 659 (1977); see Black’s Law Dictionary 798 (5th ed. 1979).

2023Ct. App. 2004) (applying the law of the case doctrine); Hess v. Wojcik-Hess, 86 A.D.3d 847, 848 (N.Y.

2023See Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood, 209 Ariz. 137, ¶ 40 (App. 2004) (describing law of the case as discretionary, procedural doctrine, rather than substantive limitation).

2023Mortg., LLC, 240 Ariz. 575, ¶ 15 (App. 2016) (law of the case provides that court decision in case is “the law of that case on the issues decided throughout all subsequent proceedings in both the trial and appellate courts, provided the facts, issues and evidence are substantially the same as those upon which the first decision rested”); Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“The doctrine referred to as ‘law of the case’ describes the judicial policy of refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a high

2022Because of the testimony’s meager prejudicial effect, the court did not abuse its discretion by allowing it. ¶31 To that end, Daniel argues the superior court “committed an error of law” by failing to declare a mistrial because it had “already deemed the personal information to be unduly prejudicial.” Although we generally “review the denial of a mistrial motion for an abuse of discretion,” State v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 31, 40, ¶ 23 (2013), Daniel asserts that because “the trial judge failed to enforce his own pretrial rulings[,] [t]he trial court is not entitled to any deference regarding this i

2021See Hall v. Smith, 214 Ariz. 309, 317 , ¶¶ 28–29 (App. 2007); see also Powell-Cerkoney v. TCR-Montana Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275, 278 (App. 1993) (“When . . . we apply the doctrine to decisions of the same court, we treat law of the case as a procedural doctrine rather than as a substantive limitation on the court’s power.”); Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231, 236 (App. 2003) (noting the law of the case doctrine “does not prevent a judge from reconsidering nonfinal rulings, ‘[n]or does it prevent a different judge, sitting on the same case, from reconsidering the first judge’s pr

2017See Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99, 102, ¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).4 4 Mother suggests that the court’s failure to enforce the October 2012 and December 2013 orders constituted a modification of parenting time.