law of the case doctrine in Virginia

2022The law-of-the-case doctrine “applies both to issues that were actually decided by the court, and also to issues ‘necessarily involved in the first appeal, whether actually adjudicated or not.’” Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 276 Va. 19, 26 (2008) (quoting Kemp v. Miller, 160 Va. 280, 285 (1933)).

2022The law of the case doctrine “‘applies both to issues that were actually decided by the court, and also to issues “necessarily involved in the first appeal, whether actually adjudicated or not.”’” Id. (quoting Kemp v. Miller, 160 Va. 280, 285 (1933)). 3.

2022In other words, “[r]ight or wrong, [the previous decision] is binding on both the trial court and the appellate court.” Id. (quoting Steinman, 121 Va. at 620 ).6 But the second trial court erred in applying the law of the case doctrine because the “doctrine has no binding effect on a trial court prior to an appeal.” Robbins v. Robbins, 48 Va. App. 466, 474 (2006) (collecting cases).

2022In other words, “[r]ight or wrong, [the previous decision] is binding on both the trial court and the appellate court.” Id. (quoting Steinman, 121 Va. at 620 ).6 But the second trial court erred in applying the law of the case doctrine because the “doctrine has no binding effect on a trial court prior to an appeal.” Robbins v. Robbins, 48 Va. App. 466, 474 (2006) (collecting cases).

2024“The mandate rule, itself an application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, forecloses further litigation of ‘issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Va. Imports, Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of Am., LLC, 50 Va. App. 395, 407 (2007) (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993)).

2023“While a trial court must obey ‘both the letter and spirit’ of an appellate mandate, the mandate rule only precludes the trial court from considering issues that ‘the mandate laid at rest.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he rule is ‘merely a “specific application of the law of the case doctrine,”’ which has the effect of foreclosing ‘relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Id. (quoting Powell, 267 Va. at 128 ).

2025The law of the case doctrine provides that “[w]here there have been two appeals in the same case, between the same parties, and the facts are the same, nothing decided on the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal.” Rowe v. Rowe, 33 Va. App. 250, 262 (2000).

2025The law of the case doctrine provides that “[w]here there have been two appeals in the same case, between the same parties, and the facts are the same, nothing decided on the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal.” Rowe v. Rowe, 33 Va. App. 250, 262 (2000).

2024“The mandate rule, itself an application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, forecloses further litigation of ‘issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Va. Imports, Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of Am., LLC, 50 Va. App. 395, 407 (2007) (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993)).

2020As previously stated, “[t]he mandate rule, itself an application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, forecloses further litigation of ‘issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Virginia Imports, Ltd. v. Kirin Brewery of Am., LLC, 50 Va. App. 395, 407 (2007) (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993)).

2021The City insists that the present case is analogous to Uninsured Employer’s Fund v. Thrush, 255 Va. 14, 19 (1998), where we held that a matter previously raised on appeal to the Court of Appeals and remanded to the lower tribunal is not subject to the law of the case doctrine on a subsequent appeal.

2012LAW OF THE CASE AND DAMAGES “The law of the case doctrine provides that ‘where there have been two appeals in the same case, between the same parties, and the facts are the same, nothing decided in the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal.’” Cnty. of Henrico Police v. Medlin, 37 Va. App. 756, 763 , 561 S.E.2d 60, 63 (2002) (quoting Uninsured Employer’s Fund v. Thrush, 255 Va. 14, 18 , 496 S.E.2d 57, 58-59 (1998)).

2023“While a trial court must obey ‘both the letter and spirit’ of an appellate mandate, the mandate rule only precludes the trial court from considering issues that ‘the mandate laid at rest.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he rule is ‘merely a “specific application of the law of the case doctrine,”’ which has the effect of foreclosing ‘relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Id. (quoting Powell, 267 Va. at 128 ).

2023“While a trial court must obey ‘both the letter and spirit’ of an appellate mandate, the mandate rule only precludes the trial court from considering issues that ‘the mandate laid at rest.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir. 1993)). “[T]he rule is ‘merely a “specific application of the law of the case doctrine,”’ which has the effect of foreclosing ‘relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.’” Id. (quoting Powell, 267 Va. at 128 ).

2026See generally Durham, 303 Va. at 322 n.2 (allowing appellate courts to invoke the contemporaneous-objection procedural bar against an appellant in their discretion, regardless of whether the appellee raised it); Commonwealth v. Moncrea, ___ Va. ___, ___ n.4 (Apr. 2, 2026) (rejecting the parties’ attempted joint legal concession and deciding the case on other grounds); Logan v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 168 , 172 n.4 (2005) (en banc) (“[A]ppellate court[s] cannot vacate a criminal conviction that violates no recognizable legal principle simply on the ground that the prosecutor . . . did not art

2025“The law of the case doctrine applies in criminal cases.” Id. at 461 (citing Jimenez v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 244, 249-50 (1991)).

2025Cromartie v. Billings, 298 Va. 284 , 306 (2020) (quoting Kondaurov v. Kerdasha, 271 Va. 646, 658 (2006)).

2020“Under the law of the case doctrine, a legal decision made at one stage of the litigation, unchallenged in a subsequent appeal when the opportunity to do so existed, becomes the law of the case for future stages of the same litigation, and the parties are deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision at a later time.” Kondaurov v. Kerdasha, 271 Va. 646, 658 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 19 The jury found in favor of Cromartie for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.

2022Va. Code § 61 -11A-4(a). 16 See West v. West, 59 Va. App. 225, 234-35 (2011) (“[T]he ‘law of the case’ doctrine does not apply to a change in circumstances occurring after the judgment appealed. ‘Where material facts have changed between the first appeal and the second, the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable.’” (quoting Rowe v. Rowe, 33 Va. App. 250, 266 (2000))).

2015The “‘mandate rule is merely a specific application of the law of the case doctrine.’” West v. West, 59 Va. App. 225, 230-31 , 717 S.E.2d 831, 833 (2011) (quoting Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 128 , 590 S.E.2d 537, 550 (2004)).

1998Under the doctrine of the law of the case, the parties are barred from relitigating matters necessarily decided in the prior appeal or which could have been appealed at that time but which were not. "'Where there have been two appeals in the same case, between the same parties and the facts are the same, nothing decided on the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal.'" Kaufman v. Kaufman, 12 Va. App. 1200, 1208 , 409 S.E.2d 1, 6 (1991) (quoting Steinman v. 4 Clinchfield Coal Corp., 121 Va. 611, 620-21 , 93 S.E. 684, 687 (1917)).

1998Under the doctrine of the law of the case, the parties are barred from relitigating matters necessarily decided in the prior appeal or which could have been appealed at that time but which were not. "'Where there have been two appeals in the same case, between the same parties and the facts are the same, nothing decided on the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal.'" Kaufman v. Kaufman, 12 Va. App. 1200, 1208 , 409 S.E.2d 1, 6 (1991) (quoting Steinman v. 4 Clinchfield Coal Corp., 121 Va. 611, 620-21 , 93 S.E. 684, 687 (1917)).

2012LAW OF THE CASE AND DAMAGES “The law of the case doctrine provides that ‘where there have been two appeals in the same case, between the same parties, and the facts are the same, nothing decided in the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal.’” Cnty. of Henrico Police v. Medlin, 37 Va. App. 756, 763 , 561 S.E.2d 60, 63 (2002) (quoting Uninsured Employer’s Fund v. Thrush, 255 Va. 14, 18 , 496 S.E.2d 57, 58-59 (1998)).

2012LAW OF THE CASE AND DAMAGES “The law of the case doctrine provides that ‘where there have been two appeals in the same case, between the same parties, and the facts are the same, nothing decided in the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal.’” Cnty. of Henrico Police v. Medlin, 37 Va. App. 756, 763 , 561 S.E.2d 60, 63 (2002) (quoting Uninsured Employer’s Fund v. Thrush, 255 Va. 14, 18 , 496 S.E.2d 57, 58-59 (1998)).

2024See Daily Press, LLC v. Commonwealth, 301 Va. 384 , 404 n.12 (2022) (holding that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not limit a trial court’s authority to reconsider its earlier rulings); In re Brown, 295 Va. 202, 224 (2018) (“The law-of-the-case doctrine has no binding effect on a trial court prior to an appeal.” (quoting Robbins, 48 Va. App. at 474 )).

2022In other words, “[r]ight or wrong, [the previous decision] is binding on both the trial court and the appellate court.” Id. (quoting Steinman, 121 Va. at 620 ).6 But the second trial court erred in applying the law of the case doctrine because the “doctrine has no binding effect on a trial court prior to an appeal.” Robbins v. Robbins, 48 Va. App. 466, 474 (2006) (collecting cases).

2024See Daily Press, LLC v. Commonwealth, 301 Va. 384 , 404 n.12 (2022) (holding that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not limit a trial court’s authority to reconsider its earlier rulings); In re Brown, 295 Va. 202, 224 (2018) (“The law-of-the-case doctrine has no binding effect on a trial court prior to an appeal.” (quoting Robbins, 48 Va. App. at 474 )).

2022“The law-of-the-case doctrine has no binding effect on a trial court prior to an appeal.” In re Brown, 295 Va. 202, 224 (2018) (citation omitted). 15 On appeal, the City argues that it had standing to object to the Newspaper Publishers’ effort in the trial court to unseal the City’s subpoenaed documents and continues to have standing to contest their efforts to obtain the same relief on appeal.

2022The law-of-the-case doctrine “applies both to issues that were actually decided by the court, and also to issues ‘necessarily involved in the first appeal, whether actually adjudicated or not.’” Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 276 Va. 19, 26 (2008) (quoting Kemp v. Miller, 160 Va. 280, 285 (1933)).

2022The law of the case doctrine “‘applies both to issues that were actually decided by the court, and also to issues “necessarily involved in the first appeal, whether actually adjudicated or not.”’” Id. (quoting Kemp v. Miller, 160 Va. 280, 285 (1933)). 3.

2011The mandate rule is “merely a ‘specific application *231 of the law of the case doctrine/ [and] in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it compels compliance on remand with the dictates of a superior court and forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.” United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247, 251 (1st Cir.1993)).

2004The mandate rule “is merely a ‘specific application of the law of the case doctrine,’ [and] in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it compels compliance on remand with the dictates of a superior court and forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.” United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247, 251 (1st Cir. 1993)).

2025Where “the facts are the same, nothing decided on the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal.” Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 276 Va. 19, 26 (2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Steinman, 121 Va. at 620 ). 10 Herbert v. Joubert, No. 1384-17-4, 2018 Va. App. LEXIS 222 (Aug. 14, 2018); Joubert v. Herbert, No. 1102-19-4, 2020 Va. App. LEXIS 228 (Sept. 1, 2020). - 18 - factual findings that are plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence.” Congdon, 40 Va. App. at 262 .

2006An abuse of discretion occurs when a decisionmaker uses “an improper legal standard in exercising its discretionary function” because the decisionmaker “by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” Congdon v. Congdon, 40 Va.App. 255, 262 , 578 S.E.2d 833, 836 (2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Owens v. Owens, 41 Va.App. 844, 853 , 589 S.E.2d 488, 493 (2003).

2013See Ilg v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 284 Va. 294, 301 , 726 S.E.2d 21, 25 (2012) (holding that the law of the case doctrine was inapplicable to issues there on appeal); cf. Lane v. Starke, 279 Va. 686 , 689 n.3, 692 S.E.2d 217 , 218 n.3 (2010) (explaining that the subject ruling of the trial court that was not appealed became the law of the case).

2013See Ilg v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 284 Va. 294, 301 , 726 S.E.2d 21, 25 (2012) (holding that the law of the case doctrine was inapplicable to issues there on appeal); cf. Lane v. Starke, 279 Va. 686 , 689 n.3, 692 S.E.2d 217 , 218 n.3 (2010) (explaining that the subject ruling of the trial court that was not appealed became the law of the case).

2026See generally Durham, 303 Va. at 322 n.2 (allowing appellate courts to invoke the contemporaneous-objection procedural bar against an appellant in their discretion, regardless of whether the appellee raised it); Commonwealth v. Moncrea, ___ Va. ___, ___ n.4 (Apr. 2, 2026) (rejecting the parties’ attempted joint legal concession and deciding the case on other grounds); Logan v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 168 , 172 n.4 (2005) (en banc) (“[A]ppellate court[s] cannot vacate a criminal conviction that violates no recognizable legal principle simply on the ground that the prosecutor . . . did not art

2026See generally Durham, 303 Va. at 322 n.2 (allowing appellate courts to invoke the contemporaneous-objection procedural bar against an appellant in their discretion, regardless of whether the appellee raised it); Commonwealth v. Moncrea, ___ Va. ___, ___ n.4 (Apr. 2, 2026) (rejecting the parties’ attempted joint legal concession and deciding the case on other grounds); Logan v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 168 , 172 n.4 (2005) (en banc) (“[A]ppellate court[s] cannot vacate a criminal conviction that violates no recognizable legal principle simply on the ground that the prosecutor . . . did not art

2024Because “the parties’ contract becomes the law of the case,” and because the forbearance agreement provided that AGM was to pay any remaining funds needed to satisfy ULC’s judgment, the Agnews maintain that “ULC has no right to come after [them] for any deficiency.” But the record before us is insufficient for us to reach the merits of this argument. “[A]n appellate court’s review of the case is limited to the record on appeal,” Wilkins v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 711, 717 (2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99 (1986)), and “it is the responsibility

2024Because “the parties’ contract becomes the law of the case,” and because the forbearance agreement provided that AGM was to pay any remaining funds needed to satisfy ULC’s judgment, the Agnews maintain that “ULC has no right to come after [them] for any deficiency.” But the record before us is insufficient for us to reach the merits of this argument. “[A]n appellate court’s review of the case is limited to the record on appeal,” Wilkins v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 711, 717 (2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99 (1986)), and “it is the responsibility

2024Because “the parties’ contract becomes the law of the case,” and because the forbearance agreement provided that AGM was to pay any remaining funds needed to satisfy ULC’s judgment, the Agnews maintain that “ULC has no right to come after [them] for any deficiency.” But the record before us is insufficient for us to reach the merits of this argument. “[A]n appellate court’s review of the case is limited to the record on appeal,” Wilkins v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 711, 717 (2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99 (1986)), and “it is the responsibility

2023See Lee v. Spoden, 290 Va. 235, 248 (2015) (“The touchstone of privity for purposes of res judicata is that a party’s interest is so identical with another that representation by one party is representation of the other’s legal right.” (quoting State Water Control Bd. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 261 Va. 209, 214 (2001))).12 IV.

2023See Lee v. Spoden, 290 Va. 235, 248 (2015) (“The touchstone of privity for purposes of res judicata is that a party’s interest is so identical with another that representation by one party is representation of the other’s legal right.” (quoting State Water Control Bd. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 261 Va. 209, 214 (2001))).12 IV.

2022The trial court told wife’s counsel he could make a fuller proffer “at the end of the hearing,” and although counsel agreed, he never did so. 3 A party seeking to modify his spousal support obligation must show his inability “to pay is not due to his own voluntary act or . . . neglect.” Edwards v. Lowry, 232 Va. 110, 112-13 (1986); Hammers v. Hammers, 216 Va. 30, 31-32 (1975). -4- At the end of the hearing, the second trial court found husband’s termination, coupled with the end of his severance pay, to be a material change in circumstances and granted husband’s motion to modify spousal suppor

2022See Cole v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 342, 353 (2017).