law of the case doctrine in Maryland

2025Navigating the Tension Between Maryland Rule 4-345(a)(“Illegal Sentence”) and the Law of the Case Doctrine Our decisional law instructs that under the law of the case doctrine, “once an appellate court rules upon a question presented on appeal, litigants and lower courts become bound by the ruling, which is considered to be the law of the case.” Scott v. State, 379 Md. 170, 183 (2004).

2025Maryland Rule 4-345(a) specifies that the “court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.” In Scott, the Supreme Court of Maryland recognized the inherent tension between Rule 4-345(a), which provides “a method of opening a judgment otherwise final and beyond the reach of the court[,]” and the law of the case doctrine’s prohibition on relitigating an issue decided in a prior appeal. 379 Md. at 182 n.6 (quoting State v. Griffiths, 338 Md. 485, 496 (1995)).

2016Garner, 405 Md. at 56 , 949 A.2d 639 ; Turner v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 364 Md. 24, 34 , 770 A.2d 671 (2001). 15 *731 Whether the law of the case doctrine should be applied in particular circumstances is a legal question; accordingly, we review a lower court’s invocation of that doctrine without any special deference.

2016Garner, 405 Md. at 56 , 949 A.2d 639 ; Turner v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 364 Md. 24, 34 , 770 A.2d 671 (2001). 15 *731 Whether the law of the case doctrine should be applied in particular circumstances is a legal question; accordingly, we review a lower court’s invocation of that doctrine without any special deference.

2014Moreover, we held in Loveday that “the law of the case doctrine does not apply to this [C]ourt which is required to review judgments of subordinate courts.” 296 Md. at 234 , 462 A.2d at 61 .

2014Moreover, we held in Loveday that “the law of the case doctrine does not apply to this [C]ourt which is required to review judgments of subordinate courts.” 296 Md. at 234 , 462 A.2d at 61 .

2024See Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43, 56 (2008) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine does not apply when the prior appellate decision “was clearly erroneous” and affording it preclusive effect “would work a manifest injustice”) (quoting Turner v. Hous.

2024See Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43, 56 (2008) (explaining that the law of the case doctrine does not apply when the prior appellate decision “was clearly erroneous” and affording it preclusive effect “would work a manifest injustice”) (quoting Turner v. Hous.

2018The law of the case doctrine is rooted in appellate framework, and its purpose is to prevent piecemeal litigation, Reier v. State Dept. of Assessments & Taxation , 397 Md. 2 , 21, 915 A.2d 970 , 981 (2007), and without it "any party to a suit could institute as many successive appeals as the fiction of his imagination could produce new reasons to assign as to why his side of the case should prevail, and the litigation would never terminate." Id. (quoting Fid.-Baltimore Nat.

2018The law of the case doctrine is rooted in appellate framework, and its purpose is to prevent piecemeal litigation, Reier v. State Dept. of Assessments & Taxation , 397 Md. 2 , 21, 915 A.2d 970 , 981 (2007), and without it "any party to a suit could institute as many successive appeals as the fiction of his imagination could produce new reasons to assign as to why his side of the case should prevail, and the litigation would never terminate." Id. (quoting Fid.-Baltimore Nat.

2025Under the law of the case doctrine, “[w]hen a case is appealed and remanded, the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case, which must be followed by the trial court on remand.” Tu v. State, 336 Md. 406, 416 (1994) (quoting 1B J.W.

2003“The law of the case doctrine lies somewhere beyond stare decisis and short of res judicata." Tu v. State, 336 Md. 406, 416 , 648 A.2d 993 (1994).

2025In Maryland, the law-of-the- case doctrine is considered “one of appellate procedure[.]” See Goldstein & Baron Chartered, 375 Md. at 260 -61 (quoting Hawes v. Liberty Homes, Inc., 100 Md.

2016See Scott, 379 Md. at 184-85 (reviewing whether the “law of the case” doctrine applied to judges on the same trial court under a de novo standard); Goldstein & Baron Chartered v. Chesley, 375 Md. 244, 260-61 , 825 A.2d 985 (2003) (same). 15 As courts have sometimes noted, the law of the case doctrine does not apply to the Court of Appeals to the same extent as the lower courts.

2004Co., 305 Md. 407, 414 , 504 A.2d 1145, 1149 (1986)(explaining that the law of the case doctrine does not apply to the Court of Appeals because it is required to review judgments of subordinate courts)(citing Loveday v. State, 296 Md. 226, 229-34 , 462 A.2d 58, 61 (1983)).

2004Co., 305 Md. 407, 414 , 504 A.2d 1145, 1149 (1986)(explaining that the law of the case doctrine does not apply to the Court of Appeals because it is required to review judgments of subordinate courts)(citing Loveday v. State, 296 Md. 226, 229-34 , 462 A.2d 58, 61 (1983)).

2008See NCAA v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 301 Md. 574, 582 , 483 A.2d 1272, 1276 (1984) (holding that a trial judge erroneously applied the law of the case doctrine regarding an issue that had not been decided by another court); Donaldson v. Raborg, 28 Md. 34, 53 (1867) (“[W]e find nothing in the opinion of this Court on the former appeals indicating a purpose to debar the parties from raising the questions now presented, by further proceedings in the Orphans’ Court.”); Hagez, 131 Md.App. at 419 , 749 A.2d at 215 (“On the other hand, the trial court obviously [is] not bound by points that [were] never

2008See NCAA v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 301 Md. 574, 582 , 483 A.2d 1272, 1276 (1984) (holding that a trial judge erroneously applied the law of the case doctrine regarding an issue that had not been decided by another court); Donaldson v. Raborg, 28 Md. 34, 53 (1867) (“[W]e find nothing in the opinion of this Court on the former appeals indicating a purpose to debar the parties from raising the questions now presented, by further proceedings in the Orphans’ Court.”); Hagez, 131 Md.App. at 419 , 749 A.2d at 215 (“On the other hand, the trial court obviously [is] not bound by points that [were] never

2025In Maryland, the law-of-the- case doctrine is considered “one of appellate procedure[.]” See Goldstein & Baron Chartered, 375 Md. at 260 -61 (quoting Hawes v. Liberty Homes, Inc., 100 Md.

2016The law of the case doctrine is not a fixed, immutable doctrine, but more a matter of “appellate procedure and convenience.” Hawes v. Liberty Homes, Inc., 100 Md.App. 222, 230 , 640 A.2d 743 (1994) (Wilner, J.).

2025In determining whether the law of the case doctrine applies, we focus on whether the appellate court decided an issue “between the same parties in the same case.” Kline v. Kline, 93 Md.

2017Under the law of the case doctrine, “[njeither questions that were decided nor questions that could have been raised and decided on appeal can be relitigated.” Kline, 93 Md.App. at 700 , 614 A.2d 984 (Emphasis added).

2014Nat’l Bank, supra, 217 Md. *659 at 372, 142 A.2d 796 , “neither the questions decided [by the appellate courts] nor the ones that could have been raised and decided are available to be raised in a subsequent appeal.” (Emphasis added.) In the Court of Appeals’s opinion in Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., supra, 405 Md. at 56 , 949 A.2d 639 , it quoted the following from Turner v. Housing Auth. of Balt, 364 Md. 24, 34 , 770 A.2d 671 (2001): It is well settled that the law of the case doctrine does not apply when one of three exceptional circumstances exists: the evidence on a subsequent tr

2008Co., 217 Md. 367, 372 , 142 A.2d 796, 798 (1958)). *56 “It is well settled that the law of the case doctrine does not apply when one of three exceptional circumstances exists: the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, controlling authority has since made a contrary decision on the law applicable to such issues, or the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Turner v. Hous.

2025Analysis 21 The law-of-the-case doctrine is based on the “policy that when an issue is once litigated and decided, that should be the end of the matter.” U.S. v. U.S. Smelting Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 (1950) (citations omitted).

2016Moreover, even if the law of the case doctrine did not dictate the outcome, the result would be the same, as the County’s no-appropriation arguments lacks merit in this context. *729 A. Whether the County’s Argument is Precluded by The Law of the Case The Law of the Case Doctrine The law of the case doctrine is a “rule of practice, based upon sound policy that when an issue is once litigated and decided, that should be the end of the matter.” United States v. United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 , 70 S.Ct. 537 , 94 L.Ed. 750 (1950). 13 Under that doctrine, “once an a

2018App. 558 , 562-63, 916 A.2d 393 , 395, cert. denied , 399 Md. 594 , 925 A.2d 633 (2007), the Court of Special Appeals held that the law of the case doctrine did not bar a trial court from considering a challenge to a sentence where the defendant had not raised the challenge in a prior appeal.

2018In other words, "the law of the case doctrine [ ] prevent[s] relitigation of an 'illegal sentence' argument that has been presented to[,] and rejected by[,] an appellate court." Garnett , 172 Md.

2024See Peterson v. Orphans’ Ct. for Queen Anne’s Cnty., 160 Md.

2024See Peterson v. Orphans’ Ct. for Queen Anne’s Cnty., 160 Md.

2018See Nichols v. State, 458 Md. 580 , 183 A.3d 156 (2018). - 12 - DISCUSSION I.

2018See Nichols v. State , 458 Md. 580 , 183 A.3d 156 (2018).

2018See Nichols v. State, 458 Md. 580 , 183 A.3d 156 (2018). - 12 - DISCUSSION I.

2018See Nichols v. State , 458 Md. 580 , 183 A.3d 156 (2018).

2017And, more recently, in Holloway v. State, 232 Md.App. 272, 282 , 157 A.3d 356 (2017), we observed that the law of the case doctrine applies, not only to a claim that was actually decided in a prior appeal, but also to any claim “that could have been raised and decided.” Furthermore, the Court of Appeals has expressly rejected the notion that “the doctrine of law of the case [is] inapplicable to motions to correct an illegal sentence.” Scott, 379 Md. at 183 , 840 A.2d 715 .

2017And, more recently, in Holloway v. State, 232 Md.App. 272, 282 , 157 A.3d 356 (2017), we observed that the law of the case doctrine applies, not only to a claim that was actually decided in a prior appeal, but also to any claim “that could have been raised and decided.” Furthermore, the Court of Appeals has expressly rejected the notion that “the doctrine of law of the case [is] inapplicable to motions to correct an illegal sentence.” Scott, 379 Md. at 183 , 840 A.2d 715 .

2017See Doe , 439 Md. at 216 , 94 A.3d at 800 .

2017See Doe , 439 Md. at 216 , 94 A.3d at 800 .

2011A. Law of the Case Analysis Under the law of the case doctrine, “[o]nee an appellate court has answered a question of law in a given case, the issue is settled for all future proceedings.” Stokes v. American Airlines, 142 Md.App. 440, 446 , 790 A.2d 699 (2002).

2011A. Law of the Case Analysis Under the law of the case doctrine, “[o]nee an appellate court has answered a question of law in a given case, the issue is settled for all future proceedings.” Stokes v. American Airlines, 142 Md.App. 440, 446 , 790 A.2d 699 (2002).

2008See Reier v. State Dept. of Assessments & Taxation, 397 Md. 2, 20-21 , 915 A.2d 970 (2007); Schisler v. State, 177 Md.App. 731, 742 , 938 A.2d 57 (2007).

2008See Reier v. State Dept. of Assessments & Taxation, 397 Md. 2, 20-21 , 915 A.2d 970 (2007); Schisler v. State, 177 Md.App. 731, 742 , 938 A.2d 57 (2007).

2025State v. Garnett, 384 Md. 466, 469 (2004).

2007The Garnett I Court expressly stated that “[t]he issue of the constitutionality of imposing a criminal sanction upon a person found guilty but not criminally responsible ... is not before us, as Garnett has not raised it.” 384 Md. at 475 n. 10, 863 A.2d 1007 .

2025Ordinarily, the law of the case doctrine applies not 14 only when an appellate court has “ruled upon a question properly presented” in a previous appeal within the same case, but also, to bar any ruling that would be “contrary to a question that could have been raised and argued in that appeal on the then state of the record[.]” Martello v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Md., Inc., 143 Md.

2006In Maryland, the law of the case doctrine prevents the revisiting of not only an issue that has been properly raised on appeal but also “a question that could have been raised and argued in that appeal on the then state of the record----” Martello v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Maryland, Inc., 143 Md.App. 462, 474 , 795 A.2d 185 (2002) (emphasis added).