law of the case doctrine in Michigan

2025The doctrine’s purpose is the need for finality of judgments and the lack of jurisdiction of an appellate court to modify its judgments except on rehearing. [Brownlow v McCall Enterprises, Inc, 315 Mich App 103, 110-111 ; 888 NW2d 295 (2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] The law-of-the-case doctrine “applies ‘only to issues actually decided, either implicitly or explicitly, in the prior appeal.’ ” Rott v Rott, 508 Mich 274 , 287; 972 NW2d 789 (2021), quoting Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 260 ; 612 NW2d 120 (2000).

2025The doctrine’s purpose is the need for finality of judgments and the lack of jurisdiction of an appellate court to modify its judgments except on rehearing. [Brownlow v McCall Enterprises, Inc, 315 Mich App 103, 110-111 ; 888 NW2d 295 (2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] The law-of-the-case doctrine “applies ‘only to issues actually decided, either implicitly or explicitly, in the prior appeal.’ ” Rott v Rott, 508 Mich 274 , 287; 972 NW2d 789 (2021), quoting Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 260 ; 612 NW2d 120 (2000).

2024And our Supreme Court recently explained: The law-of-the-case doctrine “ ‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power.’ ” Locricchio [v Evening News Ass’n], 438 Mich [84,] 109[; 476 NW2d 112 (1991)] (emphasis added), quoting Messenger v Anderson, 225 US 436, 444 ; 32 S Ct 739 ; 56 L Ed 1152 (1912).

2021To straightjacket proceedings subsequent to a decision on a case by an appellate court by making assumptions regarding the disposition of arguments which the appellate court did not see fit to consider is not, in our opinion, the wisest of policies. [People v Fisher, 449 Mich 441, 447 ; 537 NW2d 577 (1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] 7 The law-of-the-case doctrine “ ‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power.’ ” Locricchio, 438 Mich at 109 (emphasis added), quoting Messenger v Anderson, 225 US 436, 444 ;

2026Because there has been no material change in facts or law, this Court is bound by the law- of-the-case doctrine, Duncan, 300 Mich App at 189 , and this Court’s prior determination that the Tanton papers are public records is final.

2025As noted above, an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine applies when the facts of the case have materially changed, see Duncan, 300 Mich App at 189 , but that exception does not apply here.

2022However, “[p]articularly in criminal cases, the law of the case doctrine is not inflexible and need not be applied if it will create an injustice.” People v Phillips, 227 Mich App 28, 33 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997).

2022However, “[p]articularly in criminal cases, the law of the case doctrine is not inflexible and need not be applied if it will create an injustice.” People v Phillips, 227 Mich App 28, 33 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997).

2025Following a de novo review of the record, the court found that the reduction, both in fact and in amount, was equitable based on plaintiff’s decreased income, defendant’s “present income,” and defendant’s “failure to timely 3 As this Court has explained, “a conclusion that a prior appellate decision was erroneous is not sufficient in itself to justify ignoring the law of the case doctrine.” Grace v Grace, 253 Mich App 357, 363 ; 655 NW2d 595 (2002).

2025Following a de novo review of the record, the court found that the reduction, both in fact and in amount, was equitable based on plaintiff’s decreased income, defendant’s “present income,” and defendant’s “failure to timely 3 As this Court has explained, “a conclusion that a prior appellate decision was erroneous is not sufficient in itself to justify ignoring the law of the case doctrine.” Grace v Grace, 253 Mich App 357, 363 ; 655 NW2d 595 (2002).

2024See Higgins Lake Prop Owners Ass’n v Gerrish Twp, 255 Mich App 83, 91 ; 662 NW2d 387 (2003), quoting Ashker v Ford Motor Co, 245 Mich App 9, 13 ; 627 NW2d 1 (2001) (“The law of the case doctrine holds that a ruling by an appellate court on a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue.”).

2024See Higgins Lake Prop Owners Ass’n v Gerrish Twp, 255 Mich App 83, 91 ; 662 NW2d 387 (2003), quoting Ashker v Ford Motor Co, 245 Mich App 9, 13 ; 627 NW2d 1 (2001) (“The law of the case doctrine holds that a ruling by an appellate court on a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue.”).

2023Further, the law-of-the-case doctrine “provides that an appellate court’s decision regarding a particular issue is binding on courts of equal or subordinate jurisdiction during subsequent proceedings in the same case.” People v Herrera, 204 Mich App 333, 340 ; 514 NW2d 543 (1994).

2023Further, the law-of-the-case doctrine “provides that an appellate court’s decision regarding a particular issue is binding on courts of equal or subordinate jurisdiction during subsequent proceedings in the same case.” People v Herrera, 204 Mich App 333, 340 ; 514 NW2d 543 (1994).

2020In Lenawee Co v Wagley, 301 Mich App 134, 149-150 ; 836 NW2d 193 (2013), this Court explained: “The law of the case doctrine holds that a ruling by an appellate court on a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue.” New Props, Inc v George D Newpower, Jr, Inc, 282 Mich App 120, 132 ; 762 NW2d 178 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[I]f an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal questions thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a s

2020In Lenawee Co v Wagley, 301 Mich App 134, 149-150 ; 836 NW2d 193 (2013), this Court explained: “The law of the case doctrine holds that a ruling by an appellate court on a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue.” New Props, Inc v George D Newpower, Jr, Inc, 282 Mich App 120, 132 ; 762 NW2d 178 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[I]f an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal questions thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a s

2023LAW OF THE CASE As an initial matter, we reject defendant’s argument that the trial court was obligated to instruct the jury regarding the sudden-emergency doctrine pursuant to our decision in Paul II.4 Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, “if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal questions thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain materially the same.” CAF Investment Co v Twp of Saginaw, 410 Mich 428, 454 ; 302 NW2d 164 (1981).

2023LAW OF THE CASE As an initial matter, we reject defendant’s argument that the trial court was obligated to instruct the jury regarding the sudden-emergency doctrine pursuant to our decision in Paul II.4 Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, “if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal questions thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain materially the same.” CAF Investment Co v Twp of Saginaw, 410 Mich 428, 454 ; 302 NW2d 164 (1981).

2023Defendants also include with their arguments relating to the Zoning Enabling Act the assertion that revocation of the nonconforming use permit on which they relied “is essentially a taking or a condemnation . . . under the Michigan and US Constitutions,” with no citation to authority. 1 “The law of the case doctrine holds that a ruling by an appellate court on a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue.” KBD & Assocs, Inc v Great Lakes Foam Technologies, Inc, 295 Mich App 666, 679 ; 816 NW2d 464 (2012). 2 Such questions as whether defendants

2023Defendants also include with their arguments relating to the Zoning Enabling Act the assertion that revocation of the nonconforming use permit on which they relied “is essentially a taking or a condemnation . . . under the Michigan and US Constitutions,” with no citation to authority. 1 “The law of the case doctrine holds that a ruling by an appellate court on a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue.” KBD & Assocs, Inc v Great Lakes Foam Technologies, Inc, 295 Mich App 666, 679 ; 816 NW2d 464 (2012). 2 Such questions as whether defendants

2025“The law of the case doctrine holds that a ruling by an appellate court on a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue.” New Props, Inc v George D Newpower, Jr, Inc, 282 Mich App 120, 132 ; 762 NW2d 178 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[I]f an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal questions thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain materially the same.” Id. (quotation m

2025“The law of the case doctrine holds that a ruling by an appellate court on a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue.” New Props, Inc v George D Newpower, Jr, Inc, 282 Mich App 120, 132 ; 762 NW2d 178 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[I]f an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal questions thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain materially the same.” Id. (quotation m

2025The doctrine’s purpose is the need for finality of judgments and the lack of jurisdiction of an appellate court to modify its judgments except on rehearing. [Brownlow v McCall Enterprises, Inc, 315 Mich App 103, 110-111 ; 888 NW2d 295 (2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] The law-of-the-case doctrine “applies ‘only to issues actually decided, either implicitly or explicitly, in the prior appeal.’ ” Rott v Rott, 508 Mich 274 , 287; 972 NW2d 789 (2021), quoting Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 260 ; 612 NW2d 120 (2000).

2025The law-of-the-case doctrine “provides that a ruling by an appellate court with regard to a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue, but only if the facts remain materially the same.” Brownlow v McCall Enterprises, Inc, 315 Mich App 103, 110 ; 888 NW2d 295 (2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2019Indeed, this Court routinely recognizes that “the doctrine of law of the case is a bright-line rule to be applied virtually without exception.” Id. (alteration omitted; emphasis added), quoting Reeves v Cincinnati, Inc (After Remand), 208 Mich App 556, 560 ; 528 NW2d -6- 787 (1995).

2019In fact, “[e]ven if the prior decision was erroneous, that alone is insufficient to avoid application of the law of the case doctrine.” Id.

2021To straightjacket proceedings subsequent to a decision on a case by an appellate court by making assumptions regarding the disposition of arguments which the appellate court did not see fit to consider is not, in our opinion, the wisest of policies. [People v Fisher, 449 Mich 441, 447 ; 537 NW2d 577 (1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] 7 The law-of-the-case doctrine “ ‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power.’ ” Locricchio, 438 Mich at 109 (emphasis added), quoting Messenger v Anderson, 225 US 436, 444 ;

2021To straightjacket proceedings subsequent to a decision on a case by an appellate court by making assumptions regarding the disposition of arguments which the appellate court did not see fit to consider is not, in our opinion, the wisest of policies. [People v Fisher, 449 Mich 441, 447 ; 537 NW2d 577 (1995) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] 7 The law-of-the-case doctrine “ ‘merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power.’ ” Locricchio, 438 Mich at 109 (emphasis added), quoting Messenger v Anderson, 225 US 436, 444 ;

2023This Court held that it had “a ‘mandatory obligation’ to adhere to the law-of-the-case doctrine except in several well-defined, limited circumstances,” such as a material change of the facts on remand, an intervening change in the law, or a “significant competing interest at stake, such as a constitutional right[.]” Id. at 11.

2023Turning to plaintiff’s assertion that the decision of the prior panel was mistaken, this Court conceded that a case could be made that the prior panel erred by granting peremptory reversal, but declined to determine whether the prior panel erred because “[c]ase law in this jurisdiction is clear that the law-of-the-case doctrine applies regardless of the correctness of the prior determination.” Id. at 12-13.

2023Plaintiff’s preferred approach, under which public-service providers would be strictly liable for precisely the same conduct as that for which they would 1 The trial court summarily dismissed Doe’s other tort claims on immunity grounds. 2 We review de novo our jurisdiction to hear an appeal, Chen v Wayne State Univ, 284 Mich App 172, 191 ; 771 NW2d 820 (2009), the proper application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, Kasben v Hoffman, 278 Mich App 466, 470 ; 751 NW2d 520 (2008), the proper application of the law of governmental immunity, Champine v Dep’t of Transp, 509 Mich 447 , 452; 983 NW2d 7

2023Plaintiff’s preferred approach, under which public-service providers would be strictly liable for precisely the same conduct as that for which they would 1 The trial court summarily dismissed Doe’s other tort claims on immunity grounds. 2 We review de novo our jurisdiction to hear an appeal, Chen v Wayne State Univ, 284 Mich App 172, 191 ; 771 NW2d 820 (2009), the proper application of the law-of-the-case doctrine, Kasben v Hoffman, 278 Mich App 466, 470 ; 751 NW2d 520 (2008), the proper application of the law of governmental immunity, Champine v Dep’t of Transp, 509 Mich 447 , 452; 983 NW2d 7

2023See Sumner, 245 Mich App at 657 - 658 (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the law-of-the-case doctrine required a new trial where an intervening case overruled the holding in Sumner in the parties’ first appeal); Freeman, 212 Mich App at 38-39 (stating that the law-of-the-case doctrine did not apply in an appeal concerning the Uniform Commercial Code where, after the first appeal, the Court concluded that privity was not required in economic loss cases involving commercial buyers of manufactured goods).

2002Clearly, the law-of-the-case doctrine has no usefulness if it is only applied when a panel of this Court agrees with the decision reached by a prior panel. [Id] *183 Nevertheless, the law of the case doctrine is “discretionary and merely expresses the practice of courts generally; it is not a limit on their power.” Freeman v DEC Int’l, Inc, 212 Mich App 34, 37 ; 536 NW2d 815 (1995).

2023See Augustine v Allstate Ins Co, 292 Mich App 408, 425 ; 807 NW2d 77 (2011) (stating that under the law-of-the- case doctrine, “this Court’s determination of an issue in a case binds both the trial court on remand and this Court in subsequent appeals.”). -1- remove them from respondent’s care, place them with their father, and terminate respondent’s parental rights.

2023See Augustine v Allstate Ins Co, 292 Mich App 408, 425 ; 807 NW2d 77 (2011) (stating that under the law-of-the- case doctrine, “this Court’s determination of an issue in a case binds both the trial court on remand and this Court in subsequent appeals.”). -1- remove them from respondent’s care, place them with their father, and terminate respondent’s parental rights.

2023Such procedural requirements include providing the “health facility” or “health professional” against whom suit will be brought with notice of 2 Defendant also cites Johnson v White, 430 Mich 47, 55 ; 420 NW2d 87 (1988), claiming that it establishes that the clearly erroneous exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine is not applicable in Michigan.

2023Such procedural requirements include providing the “health facility” or “health professional” against whom suit will be brought with notice of 2 Defendant also cites Johnson v White, 430 Mich 47, 55 ; 420 NW2d 87 (1988), claiming that it establishes that the clearly erroneous exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine is not applicable in Michigan.

2023Nevertheless, the law of the case doctrine “applies only to those questions determined by the appellate court’s prior decision and to those questions that are necessary to the court’s determination.” Marysville v Pate, Hirn & Bogue, Inc, 196 Mich App 32, 34 ; 492 NW2d 481 (1992).

2023Nevertheless, the law of the case doctrine “applies only to those questions determined by the appellate court’s prior decision and to those questions that are necessary to the court’s determination.” Marysville v Pate, Hirn & Bogue, Inc, 196 Mich App 32, 34 ; 492 NW2d 481 (1992).

2022Some cases like People v Mitchell, 231 Mich App 335, 340 ; 586 NW2d 119 (1998), have stated that the law-of-the-case doctrine bars reconsideration of an issue decided “by an equal or subordinate court during subsequent proceedings in the same case[,]” but analysis of such cases indicates that the doctrine applies to courts after an appellate court has rendered judgment on a legal issue, and not where a subordinate court has ruled on an issue and a party moves for different relief in the same case, as happened here.

2020The law of the case doctrine “bars reconsideration of an issue [decided] by an equal or subordinate court during subsequent proceedings in the same case.” People v Mitchell, 231 Mich App 335, 340 ; 586 NW2d 119 (1998).

2024Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a lower court must “comply strictly with the mandate of the appellate court” and errs “when it revisits a matter on which this Court has already ruled.” Schumacher v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 275 Mich App 121, 128 ; 737 NW2d 782 (2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a lower court must “comply strictly with the mandate of the appellate court” and errs “when it revisits a matter on which this Court has already ruled.” Schumacher v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 275 Mich App 121, 128 ; 737 NW2d 782 (2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022Accordingly, because the key fact upon which the circuit court relied to dismiss plaintiff’s [claim] was not among the facts apparently relied on by this Court, the law of the case doctrine was not applicable on remand and does not now bind this Court on the issue. [Driver, 226 Mich App at 565-566 .] As in the first appeal, we are again faced with the task of interpreting the trial court’s judgment to discern where the court set the new boundary after ruling that plaintiffs prevailed on their acquiescence claim.

2022Accordingly, because the key fact upon which the circuit court relied to dismiss plaintiff’s [claim] was not among the facts apparently relied on by this Court, the law of the case doctrine was not applicable on remand and does not now bind this Court on the issue. [Driver, 226 Mich App at 565-566 .] As in the first appeal, we are again faced with the task of interpreting the trial court’s judgment to discern where the court set the new boundary after ruling that plaintiffs prevailed on their acquiescence claim.

2021“The law of the case doctrine applies only to questions actually decided in the prior decision and to those questions necessary to the court’s prior determination.” Kalamazoo v Dep’t of Corrections, 229 Mich App 132, 135 ; 580 NW2d 475 (1998).

2021“The law of the case doctrine applies only to questions actually decided in the prior decision and to those questions necessary to the court’s prior determination.” Kalamazoo v Dep’t of Corrections, 229 Mich App 132, 135 ; 580 NW2d 475 (1998).