law of the case doctrine in Illinois

2026As our supreme court explained, when a reviewing court “ ‘announces a particular view of the law governing the case and reverses and remands the case for further proceedings in accordance with the views announced, if the case is again brought before such court for review the former decision is binding on the court making it, and the questions decided and determined by it on the first appeal are not open for re- consideration on the second appeal.’ ” Relph v. Board of Education of DePue Unit School District No. 103 of Bureau County, 84 Ill. 2d 436, 443 (1981) (quoting Zerulla v. Supreme Lodge O

2025“The law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of an issue already decided in the same case.” People v. Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d 381, 395 (2002). ¶ 51 We note that under the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, if a witness offers evidence that the lawyer knows is false, the lawyer “shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” Ill.

2022“Where the Appellate Court[,] *** on the first appeal to it, announces a particular view of the law governing the case and reverses and remands the case for further proceedings in accordance with the views announced, if the case is again brought before such court for review[,] the former decision is binding on the court making it, and the questions decided and determined by it on the first appeal are not open for [reconsideration] on the second appeal.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Investment Co., 86 Ill. 2d 291, 312 (1981); but cf. People v. Patterson, 154 Ill

2019“Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, generally, a rule established as controlling in a particular case will continue to be the law of the case, as long as the facts remain the same.” People v. Patterson, 154 Ill. 2d 414, 468 (1992); see Krautsack v. Anderson, 223 Ill. 2d 541, 552 (2006).

2024No such evidence is in the record, and thus Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden, and the circuit court’s decisions in accordance were proper. ¶ 46 Plaintiffs further argue that this court in Edson I validated their theories of damages, which should have bound the circuit court on the issue as the “law of the case.” See Krautsack v. Anderson, 223 Ill. 2d 541, 552 (2006) (“Generally, the law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of an issue previously decided in the same case.”).

2023And, “[g]enerally, the law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of an issue previously decided in the same case.” Krautsack v. Anderson, 223 Ill. 2d 541, 552 (2006).

2025In Blessing I, we remanded this case for a determination of the issues raised in defendants’ motions that had not been resolved by the circuit court, including the question of the sufficiency of the summonses. ¶ 70 Our prior decision effectively decided the timeliness argument within the context of a section 2-619 motion, and our ruling comes with consequences. ¶ 71 First, there is the law of the case doctrine, which “prohibits the reconsideration of issues that have been decided by a reviewing court in a prior appeal.” In re Christopher K., 217 Ill. 2d 348, 363 (2005).

2022But that did not happen. ¶ 43 And finally, Barbara misses the mark when she asserts that it is law of the case that she is “severely mentally unwell.” “The law-of-the-case doctrine prohibits the reconsideration of issues that have been decided by a reviewing court in a prior appeal.” In re Christopher K., 217 Ill. 2d 348, 363 (2005). “ ‘The doctrine applies to questions of law and fact and encompasses a court’s explicit decisions, as well as those decisions made by necessary implication.’ ” Lurie v. Wolin, 2017 IL App (1st) 161571, ¶ 26 (quoting American Service Insurance Co. v. China Ocean Sh

2026As our supreme court explained, when a reviewing court “ ‘announces a particular view of the law governing the case and reverses and remands the case for further proceedings in accordance with the views announced, if the case is again brought before such court for review the former decision is binding on the court making it, and the questions decided and determined by it on the first appeal are not open for re- consideration on the second appeal.’ ” Relph v. Board of Education of DePue Unit School District No. 103 of Bureau County, 84 Ill. 2d 436, 443 (1981) (quoting Zerulla v. Supreme Lodge O

2015See id. at 441 . ¶ 27 That being said, we conclude that a doctrine related to res judicata, that being the law- of-the-case doctrine, does apply.

2024The law of the case doctrine provides that “ ‘questions of law decided on a previous appeal are binding on the trial court on remand as well as on the appellate court on a subsequent appeal.’ ” Grundhoefer v. Sorin, 2018 IL App (1st) 171068, ¶ 10 (quoting Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 368 Ill. App. 3d 576, 580 (2006)).

2023“The law of the case doctrine provides that ‘questions of law decided on a previous appeal are binding on the trial court on remand as well as on the appellate court on a - 17 - subsequent appeal.’ ” Grundhoefer v. Sorin, 2018 IL App (1st) 171068, ¶ 10 (quoting Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 368 Ill. App. 3d 576, 580 (2006)).

2022In the current “First Amended Complaint at Law,” count II alleges “Legal Malpractice regarding Breach of Fiduciary Duties for conflicts of interest,” count III alleges “Legal Malpractice regarding Fiduciary duties for unauthorized disclosures,” and count IV alleges fraud. ¶ 25 The law of the case doctrine provides that “where an issue has been litigated and decided, a court’s unreserved decision on that question of law or fact settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit.” Alwin v. Village of Wheeling, 371 Ill. App. 3d 898, 911 (2007).

2022Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, “where an issue has been litigated and decided, a court’s unreversed decision on that question of law or fact settles that question for all subsequent stages of the suit.” Alwin v. Village of Wheeling, 371 Ill. App. 3d 898, 911 (2007).

2011In addition, reconsideration of a palpably erroneous ruling would not violate the law-of-the-case doctrine's purpose "to protect settled expectations of the parties, ensure uniformity of decisions, maintain consistency during the course of a single case, effectuate proper administration of justice, and bring litigation to an end." Emerson Electric Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 352 Ill.App.3d 399, 417 , 287 Ill.Dec. 280 , 815 N.E.2d 924 (2004).

2011In addition, reconsideration of a palpably erroneous ruling would not violate the law-of-the- case doctrine’s purpose “to protect settled expectations of the parties, ensure uniformity of decisions, maintain consistency during the course of a single case, effectuate proper administration of justice, and bring litigation to an end.” Emerson Electric Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 352 Ill.

2024Aardvark Art, Inc. v. Lehigh/Steck-Warlick, Inc., 284 Ill. App. 3d 627, 633 (1996). ¶ 32 Applying the law-of-the-case doctrine to the present matter, we can find no abuse of discretion with the trial court’s determination that Ellen had “forfeited her discovery-related arguments on remand.” As a general rule, the failure of a party to challenge a legal decision when - 11 - it has the opportunity to do so renders that decision the law-of-the-case for future stages of the same litigation, and that party is deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision at a later time.

2020Under 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 the decision at a later time.’ ” Aardvark Art v. Lehigh/Steck-Warlick, Inc., 284 Ill. App. 3d 627, 632 (1996) (quoting Williamsburg Wax Museum, Inc. v. Historic Figurines, Inc., 810 F.2d 243 , 250 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).

2006LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE Under the law of the case doctrine, issues presented and disposed of in a prior appeal are binding and control in the trial court upon remand, as well as in the appellate court in a subsequent appeal ( Zabinsky v. Gelber Group, Inc., 347 Ill.App.3d 243, 248 , 283 Ill.Dec. 61 , 807 N.E.2d 666 (2004)), unless the facts presented are so different as to require a different interpretation ( Bilut v. Northwestern University, 296 Ill.App.3d 42, 47 , 230 Ill.Dec. 161 , 692 N.E.2d 1327 (1998)).

2006LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE Under the law of the case doctrine, issues presented and disposed of in a prior appeal are binding and control in the trial court upon remand, as well as in the appellate court in a subsequent appeal ( Zabinsky v. Gelber Group, Inc., 347 Ill.App.3d 243, 248 , 283 Ill.Dec. 61 , 807 N.E.2d 666 (2004)), unless the facts presented are so different as to require a different interpretation ( Bilut v. Northwestern University, 296 Ill.App.3d 42, 47 , 230 Ill.Dec. 161 , 692 N.E.2d 1327 (1998)).

2025Accordingly, where “an appellate court reverses and remands the cause with a specific mandate, the only proper issue on a second appeal is whether the trial court’s order is in accordance with th[at] mandate.” Petre, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 63 . ¶ 32 There are only two recognized exceptions to the application of the law-of-the-case doctrine: (1) when a higher reviewing court, subsequent to the lower court’s decision, makes a contrary ruling on the same issue; and (2) when a reviewing court finds its prior decision was palpably erroneous.

2006The law of the case doctrine’s purpose is “to protect settled expectations of the parties, ensure uniformity of decisions, maintain consistency during the course of a single case, effectuate proper administration of justice, and bring litigation to an end.” Petre v. Kucich, 356 Ill.

2007“The second exception allows the reviewing court to depart from the doctrine of law of the case if the court finds that its prior decision was palpably erroneous, but only when the court remanded the case for a new trial on all issues.” Martin v. Federal Life Insurance Co. (Mutual), 268 Ill.

2007"The second exception allows the reviewing court to depart from the doctrine of law of the case if the court finds that its prior decision was palpably erroneous, but only when the court remanded the case for a new trial on all issues." Martin v. Federal Life Insurance Co. (Mutual), 268 Ill.

2026As our supreme court explained, when a reviewing court “ ‘announces a particular view of the law governing the case and reverses and remands the case for further proceedings in accordance with the views announced, if the case is again brought before such court for review the former decision is binding on the court making it, and the questions decided and determined by it on the first appeal are not open for re- consideration on the second appeal.’ ” Relph v. Board of Education of DePue Unit School District No. 103 of Bureau County, 84 Ill. 2d 436, 443 (1981) (quoting Zerulla v. Supreme Lodge O

2021The law-of-the-case doctrine, like the other preclusion doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, prevents a defendant from “ ‘taking two bites out of the same appellate apple.’ ” Tenner, 206 Ill. 2d at 395 (quoting People v. Partee, 125 Ill. 2d 24, 37 (1988)).

2020The law-of-the-case doctrine “ ‘encompasses a court’s explicit decisions - 32 - 1-18-0979 and issues decided by necessary implication.’ ” Underwood, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 50 (quoting Reich v. Gendreau, 308 Ill.

2018App. 3d at 829 , 242 Ill.Dec. 355 , 721 N.E.2d 634 ("Thus, the question before us is whether under Reich I , where the court clearly ruled that plaintiff waived issues related to res ipsa loquitur , the doctrine of the law of the case bars plaintiff from including a count based on res ipsa loquitur in an amended complaint on remand.").

2008In re Christopher K., 217 Ill. 2d 348, 363 (2005) (“The law-of-the-case doctrine prohibits the reconsideration of issues that have been decided by a reviewing court in a prior appeal”); Norton v. City of Chicago, 293 Ill.

2008In re Christopher K., 217 Ill. 2d 348, 363 (2005) (“The law-of-the-case doctrine prohibits the reconsideration of issues that have been decided by a reviewing court in a prior appeal”); Norton v. City of Chicago, 293 Ill.

2011In order to prevent this exception from swallowing the rule, the new evidence should not be of a nature that with due diligence could have been presented earlier." Williams, 138 Ill.2d at 393-94 , 150 Ill.Dec. 498 , 563 N.E.2d 385 . ¶ 116 In Illinois, a recognized exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine exists when the supreme court, following the first appeal, makes a contrary ruling on the precise issue of law on which the appellate court based its former opinion.

2011In order to prevent this exception from swallowing the rule, the new evidence should not -30- be of a nature that with due diligence could have been presented earlier.” Williams, 138 Ill. 2d at 393-94 . ¶ 116 In Illinois, a recognized exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine exists when the supreme court, following the first appeal, makes a contrary ruling on the precise issue of law on which the appellate court based its former opinion.

2020As we noted in People v. Sutton, 233 Ill. 2d 89, 100 (2009): “The law of the case doctrine generally bars relitigation of an issue previously decided in the same case.

2018As explained in Hopkins, “[i]n finding the law of the case doctrine inapplicable in this court, the emphasis has been on the fact that it was ‘the first time the case has been before this court,’ and not on when the issue was addressed in the appellate court.” Hopkins, 235 Ill. 2d at 470 (quoting Sutton, 233 Ill. 2d at 100 ).

2014See Village of Ringwood v. Foster, 2013 IL App (2d) 111221, ¶ 33 (the law-of-the-case doctrine limits relitigation of a previously decided issue in the same case). ¶ 56 Curiously, the majority asserts that in Clarke I “this court did not answer the question of whether defendant had the general discretion to reconfigure the schools as part of the 2011 Plan.” (Emphasis added.) Supra ¶ 32.

2014See Village of Ringwood v. Foster, 2013 IL App (2d) 111221, ¶ 33 (the law-of-the-case doctrine limits relitigation of a previously decided issue in the same case). ¶ 56 Curiously, the majority asserts that in Clarke I “this court did not answer the question of whether defendant had the general discretion to reconfigure the schools as part of the 2011 Plan.” (Emphasis added.) Supra ¶ 32.

2020People v. Triplett, 108 Ill. 2d 463, 488 (1985).

2009People v. Triplett, 108 Ill. 2d 463, 488 (1985).

2024Liccardi v. Stolt Terminals, Inc., 178 Ill. 2d 540, 547 (1997).

2005Liccardi v. Stolt Terminals, Inc., 178 Ill. 2d 540, 547 , 687 N.E.2d 968, 972 (1997); Reich v. Gendreau, 308 Ill.

2023It rejected Carlton’s law of the case argument (see Long v. Elborno, 397 Ill. App. 3d 982, 990 (2010) (“we hold that the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable in the instant case because the refiling of the complaint was not a continuation of the old action, but the commencement of an entirely new action[]”)) but found that summary judgment was warranted because the “open and obvious” issue must be resolved against Gray under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

2022Long v. Elborno, 397 Ill. App. 3d 982, 989 (2010).

2025“The law of the case doctrine limits relitigation of a previously decided issue in the same case [citation] and encompasses not only the court’s explicit decisions, but those issues decided by necessary implication [citation].” Rommel v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 2013 IL App (2d) 120273, ¶ 15 .

2025In the case at bar, we agree that the preclusion doctrine of law of the case applies. “ ‘The law of the case doctrine limits relitigation of a previously decided issue in the same case [citation] and encompasses not only the court’s explicit decisions, but those issues decided by necessary implication [citation].’ ” Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2025 IL App (1st) 231132, ¶ 49 (quoting Rommel v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, 2013 IL App (2d) 120273, ¶ 15 ). “ ‘The doctrine applies to questions of law on remand to the trial court, as well as on subsequent appeals to the appellate court.

2026As our supreme court explained, when a reviewing court “ ‘announces a particular view of the law governing the case and reverses and remands the case for further proceedings in accordance with the views announced, if the case is again brought before such court for review the former decision is binding on the court making it, and the questions decided and determined by it on the first appeal are not open for re- consideration on the second appeal.’ ” Relph v. Board of Education of DePue Unit School District No. 103 of Bureau County, 84 Ill. 2d 436, 443 (1981) (quoting Zerulla v. Supreme Lodge O

1981The doctrine of the law of the case and the change-in-law exception to it was recognized in Zerulla v. Supreme Lodge Order of Mutual Protection (1906), 223 Ill. 518 .

2022By protecting against relitigation of settled issues, “[t]his rule of practice promotes the finality and efficiency of the judicial process.” Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816 (1988).

2017By protecting against relitigation of settled issues, “[t]his rule of practice promotes the finality and efficiency of the judicial process.” Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816 (1988).

2020Second, the trial court found that respondent’s annual income was $87,419.87 per year as of April 3, 2017; through a separate uniform order of support, it ordered child support of $941.44 biweekly retroactive to April 3, 2017, with the amount of arrearages labeled as “reserved.” Thus, the amount of child support was made retroactive only to April 3, 2017, with the question of the amount for child support payments between April 29, 2016, when respondent filed his motion to reduce child support, and April 3, 5 The law of the case doctrine, which is another preclusion doctrine, requires a prior a

2020Where a party’s appeal is involuntarily dismissed for failure to file a brief, the dismissal is treated as a judgment on the merits (Hartney v. Bevis, 2018 IL App (2d) 170165, ¶ 16 ), such that the law-of-the-case doctrine applies and bars relitigation of the issue (see In re Marriage of Carstens, 2018 IL App (2d) 170183, ¶ 23 ).