law of the case doctrine in Pennsylvania

2026We noted that the defendant offered no explanation why it did not pursue interlocutory review when the ruling was first made, and admonished the tardiness, observing that “[d]elaying seeking review causes judicial resources to be wasted and undermines the expectations of the other party.” ____________________________________________ 10 The law of the case doctrine “refers to a family of rules which embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases

2026Alternatively, the 30 PCRA Petition, 6/4/2021, ¶ 249, at 44. 31 Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1). 32 The law of the case doctrine generally refers to a family of rules that “embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter.” Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (Pa. 1995).

2025Id. ____________________________________________ 4 “The law of the case doctrine refers to a family of rules which embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter[.]” Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). -8- J-S13042-25 For these reasons, we conclude the PCRA court did not err by dismissing without prejudice Appellant’s PCRA petition as premature.

2024Further, “[u]nder the law of the case doctrine, a trial court cannot overrule the holding of this Court upon remand proceedings.” Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262, 1267 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted).

2026Pollock v. Nat’l Football League, 171 A.3d 773, 781 (Pa. Super. 2017), citing Zane v. Friends Hosp., 836 A.2d 25, 29 (Pa. 2003) (“Among rules that comprise the law of the case doctrine are that: (1) upon remand for further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question ____________________________________________ in any manner disturb or depart from the judgment of the reviewing court as to any matter decided on appeal.”) (citation omitted). -7- J-S16002-26 previously decided by the appellate court in the matter; [and] (2) upon a second appeal, an appellate court m

2024See also Zane v. Friends Hosp., 575 Pa. 236 , 243 n.6, 836 A.2d 25 , 29 n.6 (2003) (stating: “Among rules that comprise the law of the case doctrine are that: (1) upon remand for further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the appellate court in the matter; (2) upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the same appellate court; and (3) upon transfer of a matter between trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction, the transferee trial court may not alter the resolution

2024Under the law of the case doctrine, “when an appellate court has considered and decided a question submitted to it upon appeal, it will not, upon a subsequent appeal on another phase of the case, reverse its previous ruling even [if] convinced it was erroneous.” Id. (citations omitted).

2023See Grover III, 2017 WL 2536543 (unpublished memorandum at *3); Commonwealth v. Gacobano, 65 A.3d 416, 419-20 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussing the law of the case doctrine).

2024The law of the case doctrine provides that “upon remand for further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the appellate court in the matter.” Mariner Chestnut - 11 - J-A15038-24 Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265, 282 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2022Just as the law of the case doctrine prevents judges of coordinate jurisdiction from overruling each other during the course of a single case, the doctrine of collateral estoppel “prevents a question of law or an issue of fact that has once been litigated and fully adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction from being relitigated in a subsequent suit.” Id. at 286 (quoting Meridian Oil & Gas Enters., Inc. v. Penn Cent.

2026As the Luketiches observe, the law of the case doctrine includes the rule that, “upon transfer of a matter between trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction, the transferee trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the transferor trial court.” Id. at 24-25 (quoting Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (Pa. 1995)).

2020Co., 705 A.2d 422, 425 (Pa. 1997) (explaining the law of the case doctrine).

2024The law of the case doctrine controls this claim: “upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the same appellate court.” Commonwealth v. Viglione, 842 A.2d 454, 462 (Pa. Super. 2004).

2022See Viglione, supra. Additionally, we agree with the trial court that Appellant has not demonstrated that he is entitled to an exception to the law of the case doctrine based on Appellant’s proffered “new” evidence.

2025Under the umbrella of the law of the case doctrine, the coordinate jurisdiction rule provides that “judges of coordinate jurisdiction should not overrule each other’s decisions.” Commonwealth v. King, 999 A.2d 598, 600 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2025Finally, this Court recognizes: The coordinate jurisdiction rule, put simply, states that “judges of coordinate jurisdiction should not overrule each other’s decisions.” The rule, applicable in both civil and criminal cases, “falls within the ambit of the ‘law of the case doctrine.’” Our Supreme Court explained . . . that the law of the case doctrine “refers to a family of rules which embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter.

2023The majority opinion of the Supreme Court “is binding not only on the parties before us, under the doctrine of law of the case,[] but is precedent as to different parties in cases involving substantially similar facts, pursuant to the rule of stare decisis.[]” Id. at 903 (footnotes omitted).

2023The majority opinion of the Supreme Court “is binding not only on the parties before us, under the doctrine of law of the case,[] but is precedent as to different parties in cases involving substantially similar facts, pursuant to the rule of stare decisis.[]” Id. at 903 (footnotes omitted).

2022Co., 980 A.2d 588, 597 (Pa. 2009) (explaining that under the law of the case doctrine, “a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not -8- J-A07025-22 reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter”).

2018Co ., 602 Pa. 490 , 980 A.2d 588 , 597 (2009) ("The law of the case doctrine sets forth various rules that embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter.").

2024Importantly, “the law of the case doctrine does not bar a trial court judge from ruling in the defendant’s favor at or after trial on a legal issue as to which preliminary objections were previously overruled.” Heart Care Consultants, LLC v. Albataineh, 239 A.3d 126, 131-32 (Pa. Super. 2020).

2023This Court applies a two-part test to determine whether a party is entitled to compel arbitration: ____________________________________________ 5 See Heart Care Consultants, LLC v. Albataineh, 239 A.3d 126, 132 (Pa. Super. 2020) (noting that pursuant to the coordinate jurisdiction rule, which this Court has described as an aspect of the law of the case doctrine, “a trial court judge may generally not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by another judge of the court”) (internal citation omitted). -8- J-A17024-23 (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists; and (2)

2026Appellant’s Brief at 20 (footnote added). ____________________________________________ 3 Our Supreme Court has explained that “the law of the case doctrine provides, in pertinent part, that upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the same appellate court.” Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581, 586 (Pa. 1999) (citation, quotations marks, and ellipsis omitted).

2017Commonwealth v. Yarris, 731 A.2d 581, 586 (Pa. 1999) (prior legal conclusion of our Court on issue becomes law of the case).21 Inasmuch as the remand proceedings before the Board were restricted to requiring the Board to further explain its rationale for its prior determination that the award of the license to Stadium comported with Sections 1304 and 1330, the Board was bound by our ruling, under the law of the case doctrine, to deny SugarHouse intervention on these matters.

2021We note that the March 15, 2019 order further fails to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 908(E), in that it lacks any information about Appellant’s right to appeal or the time limitations for doing so. 5 We observe that under the law of the case doctrine, “in a second appeal, this Court cannot change resolution of a legal question actually decided by a prior panel of this Court.” In re Estate of Elkins, 32 A.3d 768, 769 (Pa.Super. 2011) (en banc).

2017“The law of the case doctrine sets forth various rules that embody the -3- J-A08010-17 concept that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter.” In re Estate of Elkins, 32 A.3d 768, 776 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted).

2020The law of the case doctrine does not apply where a prior appellate decision is based on “palpably erroneous facts.” (Winters’ Brief (Br.) at 18 (quoting In re Reamer’s Estate, 200 A. 35, 37 (Pa. 1938)).) Furthermore, they argue there is no prior determination as to what portion of attorney fees the Township seeks is attributable solely to the zoning enforcement.

1995However, notwithstanding the numerous similarities between the law of the case doctrine and the coordinate jurisdiction rule, the traditional application of the law of the case doctrine in Pennsylvania jurisprudence has been limited to only those cases in which an appellate court has considered and decided a question submitted to it upon appeal (see, e.g., Brown’s Estate, 408 Pa. 214, 230 , 183 A.2d 307, 315 (1962) and Reamer’s Estate, 331 Pa. 117, 122 , 200 A. 35, 37 (1938)).

2023Therefore, pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, Appellant’s underlying claim that his then-wife lacked authority to consent to the search of the computers because they were not marital property lacks arguable merit.7 See Reed, 971 A.2d at 1220, 1227 ; see also Collins, 888 A.2d at 573 ; Bickerstaff, 204 A.3d at 993-94 ; Coon, 26 A.3d ____________________________________________ 7 Additionally, even if the law of the case doctrine did not apply here, Appellant’s ineffectiveness claim lacks arguable merit.

2020See generally Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216 , 1220- 1221 (Pa. 2009) (distinguishing a dismissal of an appeal on a procedural basis such as the failure to file a brief versus a dismissal on the merits that implicates the law of the case doctrine). 7Rule 1701(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows: “after an appeal is taken or review of a quasijudicial order is sought, the trial court or other government unit may no longer proceed further in the matter.” -6- J-S20003-20 that once the Commonwealth filed its appeal, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s post-sentence

2015In determining whether the law of the case doctrine applies, the appellate court “looks to where the - 14 - J-A29009-14 rulings occurred in the context of the procedural posture of the case.” Gerrow v. Shincor Silicones, Inc., 756 A.2d 697, 701 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citing Goldey v. Trustees of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 675 A.2d 264, 267 (Pa. 1996)), aff'd sub nom., Gerrow v. John Royle & Sons, 813 A.2d 778 (Pa. 2002).

2001Among the related but distinct rules which make up the law of the case doctrine are that: ... upon transfer of a matter between trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction, the transferee trial court may not alter the resolution of a *1002 legal question previously decided by the transferor trial court.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Starr, 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (1995)).

2026Pollock v. Nat’l Football League, 171 A.3d 773, 781 (Pa. Super. 2017), citing Zane v. Friends Hosp., 836 A.2d 25, 29 (Pa. 2003) (“Among rules that comprise the law of the case doctrine are that: (1) upon remand for further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question ____________________________________________ in any manner disturb or depart from the judgment of the reviewing court as to any matter decided on appeal.”) (citation omitted). -7- J-S16002-26 previously decided by the appellate court in the matter; [and] (2) upon a second appeal, an appellate court m

2024Relatedly, “[w]hile res judicata … [applies] to bar relitigation of claims or issues in a subsequent action that were subject to a final judgment in a - 12 - J-S23017-24 prior action, the law of the case doctrine exists to prevent a party from relitigating claims or issues that have been resolved previously within the same action, either in a prior appeal or by a judge of coordinate jurisdiction.” Pollock v. National Football League, 171 A.3d 773, 781 (Pa.Super. 2017), appeal denied, 645 Pa. 555 , 181 A.3d 1074 (2018).

2024In Tandon, we cited Tyro Industries, Inc. v. James A. Wood, Inc., 614 A.2d 279, 284 (Pa. Super. 1992), in which the Superior Court described the law of the case doctrine as follows: Law of the case means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of the decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case.

1998Ct. 296, 305, 614 A.2d 279, 284 (1992), in which our Superior Court described the law of the case doctrine as follows: 'Law of the case means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of the decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case.’ Banker v. Valley Forge Ins.

2025See Paddy, supra. Consequently, we conclude that, to the extent Judge Scott relied on the law of the case doctrine, this was an error of law.

2024See Paddy, supra. Consequently, we conclude that Judge Scott’s reliance on the law of the case doctrine constituted an error of law.

2020Thus, although Kyles was a new case, it was not “new law,” because it “did not announce an intervening change of law that would create an exception to the law of the case doctrine and allow the trial court to ____________________________________________ Guy, and the phrase “non-named beneficiaries” is of no moment in the current appeal. 10In their brief to this Court, Appellees appear to concede that “Agnew confirmed . . . its holding Guy[.]” Appellees’ Brief at 16. - 15 - J-A30043-19 disregard this Court’s conclusions.” Id.

2009Under the law of the case doctrine, a lower “court may not alter a legal question decided by an appellate court in the matter.” Commonwealth v. Santiago, 822 A.2d 716, 724 (Pa.Super.2003); see Commonwealth v. Starr, 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (1995) (explaining the law of the case doctrine as “a body of rules which embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or *250 by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter”). ¶ 6 The issue before the PCRA court with respect to the

2025“Departure from either the coordinate jurisdiction rule or the law of the case doctrine is allowed only in exceptional circumstances such as where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if followed.” Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406, 412 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).

2016The doctrine of the law of the case can be ignored only “where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if followed.” Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406, 412 (Pa. 2012). - 10 - J-S67026-15 There was no change in the law or facts and Judge Lunsford’s ruling is not a manifest injustice.

2023Neidert v. Charlie, 143 A.3d 384, 390-91 (Pa.Super. 2016) (cleaned up).

2017Neidert v. Charlie, 143 A.3d 384, 390 (Pa. Super. 2016) (noting that “under the doctrine of the law of the case, when an appellate court has considered and decided a question submitted to it upon appeal, it will not, upon a subsequent appeal on another phase of the case, reverse its previous ruling”.). -7- J-A33036-16 We now turn to Weiss’s contention that she is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.4 Weiss’s Brief at 23-26.

2023Co., 92 A.3d 823, 827 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2019See Morgan v. Petroleum Products Equipment Co., 92 A.3d 823, 827 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding “[a] trial judge . . . always may revisit his or her own pre-trial rulings in a case without clashing with the law of the case doctrine[.]”); see also Key Automotive Equipment Specialists, Inc. v. Abernethy, 636 A.2d 1126, 1128 (Pa. Super. 1994) (“It is well[-]settled that a trial court has the inherent power to reconsider its own rulings.”).

2025Okkerse v. Howe, 556 A.2d 827, 831 (Pa. 1989) (“judges of coordinate jurisdictions sitting in the same court should not overrule the decisions of each other”).

2020Id.; Okkerse v. Howe, … 556 A.2d 827, 831 ([Pa.] 1989). 6 Among rules that comprise the law of the case doctrine are that: “(1) upon remand for further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the appellate court in the matter; (2) upon a -6- J-A23025-19 second appeal, an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the same appellate court; and (3) upon transfer of a matter between trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction, the transferee trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal questio

2021Williams, 877 A.2d at 474 . ____________________________________________ 6 Under the law of the case doctrine, “a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter.” Commonwealth v Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (Pa. 1995). - 12 - J-S15020-21 Trizec requests remand for entry of judgment in its favor.

2021See Commonwealth v. Williams, 877 A.2d 471, 474-75 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“It is well-settled that a trial court must strictly comply with the mandate of the appellate court[.]”); see also Commonwealth v Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (Pa. 1995) (under the law of the case doctrine, “a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter.”).

2022See Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262, 1267 (Pa.Super. 2005) (en banc), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 593 Pa. 657 , 933 A.2d 650 (2007) (explaining that “law of the case doctrine” refers to family of rules which embody concept that court involved in later phases of litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by higher court in earlier phases of matter).

2015See Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“The doctrine of ‘the law of the case’ is that, when an appellate court has considered and decided a question submitted to it upon appeal, it will not, upon a subsequent appeal on another phase of the case, reverse its previous ruling even though convinced it was erroneous.”), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 933 A.2d 650 (Pa. 2007).3 ____________________________________________ 3 I recognize there are exceptions to the applicability of the law of the case doctrine, such as, where there is “an intervening change i