law of the case doctrine in Rhode Island

2011Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, after a "judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge on that same court, when confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, *Page 12 should refrain from disturbing the first ruling." Richardson v. Smith , 691 A.2d 543 , 546 (R.I. 1997) (citing Salvadore v. Major Electric Supply, Inc ., 469 A.2d 353 , 355-56 (R.I. 1983)) (emphasis added).

2011See Taveira v. Solomon, 528 A.2d 1105, 1107 (R.I.1987) *524 (“The law of the case doctrine ‘states that ordinarily, after a judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.’ ”) (quoting Salvadore v. Major Electric & Supply, Inc., 469 A.2d 353, 355-56 (R.I.1983))).

2025The law-of-the-case doctrine provides that “after one judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge on that same court, when confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.” Richardson v. Smith, 691 A.2d 543, 546 (R.I. 1997).

2011Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, after a "judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge on that same court, when confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, *Page 12 should refrain from disturbing the first ruling." Richardson v. Smith , 691 A.2d 543 , 546 (R.I. 1997) (citing Salvadore v. Major Electric Supply, Inc ., 469 A.2d 353 , 355-56 (R.I. 1983)) (emphasis added).

2023This Court has noted that “[t]he purpose of the law of the case doctrine is to ensure ‘the stability of decisions and avoid unseemly contests between judges that could result in a loss of public confidence in the judiciary.’” Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666, 678 (R.I. 2004) (brackets omitted) (quoting Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Pelchat, 727 A.2d 676, 683 (R.I. 1999)).

2023Nevertheless, the law of the case doctrine “is a flexible rule that may be disregarded when a subsequent ruling can be based on an expanded record.” Id. at 677 .

2009“The law of the case doctrine, however, is a flexible rule that may be disregarded when a subsequent ruling can be based on an expanded record.” Id. (citing Goodman v. Turner, 512 A.2d 861, 864 (R.I.1986)).

2007However, when considering whether to apply the law of the case doctrine, this Court is mindful that it "is a flexible rule that may be disregarded when the record [has] *Page 7 expanded." Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A. , 844 A.2d 666 , 677 (R.I. 2004) (citing Goodman v. Turner , 512 A.2d 861 , 864 (R.I. 1986)).

2023This Court has noted that “[t]he purpose of the law of the case doctrine is to ensure ‘the stability of decisions and avoid unseemly contests between judges that could result in a loss of public confidence in the judiciary.’” Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666, 678 (R.I. 2004) (brackets omitted) (quoting Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Pelchat, 727 A.2d 676, 683 (R.I. 1999)).

2021We reject this contention. -5- “The law of the case doctrine provides that, ‘after a judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.’” Lynch v. Spirit Rent-A-Car, Inc., 965 A.2d 417, 424 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666, 677 (R.I. 2004)).

2015We have explained that the law of the case doctrine is "particularly applicable when the rulings under consideration pertain to successive motions for summary judgment * * Ferguson v. Marshall Contractors, Inc., 745 A.2d 147, 151 (R.I.2000). 7 .

2007The law of the case doctrine provides that "ordinarily, after a judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling." Weybosset Hill Invs., LLC v. Rossi , 857 A.2d 231 , 237 (R.I. 2004) (citing Ferguson v. Marshall Contractors, Inc. , 745 A.2d 147 , 151 (R.I. 2000)).

2012"Law of the case is a discretionary doctrine that prefers consistent rulings on the same issues when they occur at the same judicial level, not when the issues are propounded to a reviewing court.” In re Review of Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project, 25 A.3d 482, 523-24 (R.I.2011) (citing and quoting Taveira v. Solomon, 528 A.2d 1105, 1107 (R.I.1987)) ("The law of the case doctrine ‘states that ordinarily, after a judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain

2012This is because “[a]n attempt to pierce the corporate veil is not itself a cause of action but rather is a means of imposing liability on an underlying cause of action, such as a tort or breach of 13 “Law of the case is a discretionary doctrine that prefers consistent rulings on the same issues when they occur at the same judicial level, not when the issues are propounded to a reviewing court.” In re Review of Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project, 25 A.3d 482, 523-24 (R.I. 2011) (citing and quoting Taveira v. Solomon, 528 A.2d 1105, 1107 (R.I. 1987) (“The law of the case doctrine ‘states that

2015"The law of the case doctrine holds that, 'after a judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.’ ’’ Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666, 677 (R.I.2004) (quoting Paolella v. Radiologic Leasing Associates, 769 A.2d 596, 599 (R.I.2001)).

2009The law of the case doctrine provides that, “after a judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.” Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666, 677 (R.I.2004) (quoting Paolella v. Radiologic Leasing Associates, 769 A.2d 596, 599 (R.I.2001)).

2007The law of the case doctrine does not have the "finality of the doctrine of res judicata"; however, it "`ought to be adhered to for the principal reason that it is designed to promote the stability of decisions of judges of the same court and to avoid unseemly contests and differences that otherwise might arise [among] them to the detriment of public confidence in the judicial function'" Gufca v. King , 865 A.2d 328 , 332-33 (R.I. 2005) (quoting Payne v. Superior Court for Providence County , 78 R.I. 177 , 184-85 , 80 A.2d 159 , 163 (1951)).

2007The law of the case doctrine does not have the "finality of the doctrine of res judicata"; however, it "`ought to be adhered to for the principal reason that it is designed to promote the stability of decisions of judges of the same court and to avoid unseemly contests and differences that otherwise might arise [among] them to the detriment of public confidence in the judicial function'" Gufca v. King , 865 A.2d 328 , 332-33 (R.I. 2005) (quoting Payne v. Superior Court for Providence County , 78 R.I. 177 , 184-85 , 80 A.2d 159 , 163 (1951)).

2009"The law of the case doctrine provides that, after a judge has decided an 'interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical matter, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.’ ” Balletta v. McHale, 823 A.2d 292, 295 (R.I.2003) (quoting Leone v. Town of New Shoreham, 534 A.2d 871, 873 (R.I.1987)). 4 .

2008"The law of the case doctrine provides that, after a judge has decided an `interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical matter, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.'" Balletta v. McHale , 823 A.2d 292 , 295 (R.I. 2003).

2009"The law of the case doctrine provides that, after a judge has decided an 'interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical matter, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.’ ” Balletta v. McHale, 823 A.2d 292, 295 (R.I.2003) (quoting Leone v. Town of New Shoreham, 534 A.2d 871, 873 (R.I.1987)). 4 .

2004Law of the Case "The law of the case doctrine provides that, after a judge has decided an `interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical matter, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.'" Balletta v. McHale, 823 A2d 292 , 295 (RI 2003) (quoting Leone v. Town of New Shoreham, 534 A.2d 871 , 873 (R.I. 1987)).

2006See Cipolla, 742 A.2d at 280 (holding that the purpose of the law of the case doctrine is to ensure the stability of decisions and avoid unseemly contests between judges that could result in a loss of public confidence in the judiciary).

2002"The law of the case doctrine provides that after one judge has decided an interlocutory motion in a pending suit a second judge should refrain from disturbing the first ruling when confronted with the same question at a later stage of the suit." Cipolla v. Rhode Island College, 742 A.2d 277 , 280 (R.I. 1999) (citing Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Pelchat, 727 A.2d 676 , 683 (R.I. 1999)).

2021We reject this contention. -5- “The law of the case doctrine provides that, ‘after a judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.’” Lynch v. Spirit Rent-A-Car, Inc., 965 A.2d 417, 424 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666, 677 (R.I. 2004)).

2020“The law of the case doctrine provides that, ‘after a judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.’” Lynch v. Spirit Rent-A Car, Inc., 965 A.2d 417, 424 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A., 844 A.2d 666, 677 (R.I. 2004)).

2004To be sure, in Paolella v. Radiologic Leasing Associates, 769 A.2d 596, 599 (R.I. 2001) (per curiam), we noted that a trial justice may properly depart from the law-of-the-case doctrine when the earlier ruling is "clearly erroneous." Accord Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 , 108 S.Ct. 2166 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (stating law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply when the "initial decision was `clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice'"); In re Estate of Speight, 739 A.2d 229, 231 (R.I. 1999) (per curiam) (noting law-of-the-case doctrine "should no

2004To be sure, in Paolella v. Radiologic Leasing Associates, 769 A.2d 596, 599 (R.I. 2001) (per curiam), we noted that a trial justice may properly depart from the law-of-the-case doctrine when the earlier ruling is “clearly erroneous.” Accord Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 , 108 S.Ct. 2166 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (stating law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply when the “initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice’ ”); In re Estate of Speight, 739 A.2d 229, 281 (R.I.1999) (per curiam) (noting law-of-the-case doctrine “should no

2004In Forte Brothers, Inc. v. State of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, 541 A.2d 1194, 1196 (R.I.1988), we stated that “a decision made by one judge of coordinate jurisdiction should not, in the absence of special circumstances, be set aside by another justice passing upon the identical question in the same case.” Accord North American Planning Corp. v. Guido, 110 R.I. 22, 24-25 , 289 A.2d 423, 425 (1972) (a decision “once made by a justice of a trial court, should not again be reviewed by another justice of the same court absent the most compelling and exceptional circumstances”).

2004In Forte Brothers, Inc. v. State of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, 541 A.2d 1194, 1196 (R.I.1988), we stated that “a decision made by one judge of coordinate jurisdiction should not, in the absence of special circumstances, be set aside by another justice passing upon the identical question in the same case.” Accord North American Planning Corp. v. Guido, 110 R.I. 22, 24-25 , 289 A.2d 423, 425 (1972) (a decision “once made by a justice of a trial court, should not again be reviewed by another justice of the same court absent the most compelling and exceptional circumstances”).

2003Often referred to as the mandate rule, “[a] corollary of the law of the case doctrine,” it “provides that a lower court on remand must implement both the letter and spirit of the [appellate court’s] mandate, and may not disregard the explicit directives of that court.” Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 364 (5th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 753 (5th Cir.1998)).

2002App. 2000)), Tollett v. City of Kemah . 285 F.3d 357 , 364 (5th Cir. 2002) ("A corollary of the law of the case doctrine is the mandate rule, which provides that a lower court on remand must implement both the letter and spirit of the appellate court's mandate, and may not disregard the explicit directives of that court").

2010That doctrine states: "under the law-of-the-case doctrine, after a `judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge on that same court, when confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in an identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.'" State v. Graham , 941 A.2d 848 , 856 (R.I. 2008) (quoting Richardson v. Smith , 691 A.2d 543 , 546 (R.I. 1997)).

2009Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, after a "judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge on that court, when confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling." State v. Graham , 941 A.2d 848 , 856 (R.I. 2008) (emphasis removed) (quoting Richardson v. Smith , 691 A.2d 549 , 546 (R.I. 1997)).

2023The law of the case doctrine “is a rule of practice, based on sound policy that, when an issue is once * * * decided, that should be the end of the matter.” Barrett v. Baylor, 457 F.2d 119, 123 (7th Cir. 1972) (citing United States v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 (1950)); see also Quillen v. Macera, 160 A.3d 1006, 1012-13 (R.I. 2017).

2019"The law of the case doctrine provides that, after a judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge, confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling." Quillen v. Macera , 160 A.3d 1006 , 1012-13 (R.I. 2017) (alteration omitted) (quoting Chavers v. Fleet Bank (RI), N.A. , 844 A.2d 666 , 677 (R.I. 2004) ).

2005The Law of the Case Doctrine "Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, `ordinarily, after one judge has decided an interlocutory matter in a pending suit, a second judge on that same court, when confronted at a later stage of the suit with the same question in the identical manner, should refrain from disturbing the first ruling.'" Buonanno v. Colmar Belting Co., 736 A.2d 86 , 87 (R.I. 1999) (quoting Richardson v. Smith, 691 A.2d 543 , 546 (R.I. 1997)).

2005The Rhode Island Supreme Court has declined to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine where the "issue did not present itself to the second judge in the same manner in which the first judge examined the issue." Buonanno, 736 A.2d at 87 .

2004To be sure, in Paolella v. Radiologic Leasing Associates, 769 A.2d 596, 599 (R.I. 2001) (per curiam), we noted that a trial justice may properly depart from the law-of-the-case doctrine when the earlier ruling is “clearly erroneous.” Accord Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 , 108 S.Ct. 2166 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (stating law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply when the “initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice’ ”); In re Estate of Speight, 739 A.2d 229, 281 (R.I.1999) (per curiam) (noting law-of-the-case doctrine “should no

2004To be sure, in Paolella v. Radiologic Leasing Associates, 769 A.2d 596, 599 (R.I. 2001) (per curiam), we noted that a trial justice may properly depart from the law-of-the-case doctrine when the earlier ruling is “clearly erroneous.” Accord Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 , 108 S.Ct. 2166 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (stating law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply when the “initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice’ ”); In re Estate of Speight, 739 A.2d 229, 281 (R.I.1999) (per curiam) (noting law-of-the-case doctrine “should no

2023III Standard of Review This Court reviews “Superior Court rulings with respect to summary judgment motions in a de novo manner.” Papudesu v. Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island, 18 A.3d 495, 497 (R.I. 2011).

2023The law of the case doctrine “is a rule of practice, based on sound policy that, when an issue is once * * * decided, that should be the end of the matter.” Barrett v. Baylor, 457 F.2d 119, 123 (7th Cir. 1972) (citing United States v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 (1950)); see also Quillen v. Macera, 160 A.3d 1006, 1012-13 (R.I. 2017).

2023The law of the case doctrine “is a rule of practice, based on sound policy that, when an issue is once * * * decided, that should be the end of the matter.” Barrett v. Baylor, 457 F.2d 119, 123 (7th Cir. 1972) (citing United States v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 (1950)); see also Quillen v. Macera, 160 A.3d 1006, 1012-13 (R.I. 2017).

2023The law of the case doctrine “is a rule of practice, based on sound policy that, when an issue is once * * * decided, that should be the end of the matter.” Barrett v. Baylor, 457 F.2d 119, 123 (7th Cir. 1972) (citing United States v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 (1950)); see also Quillen v. Macera, 160 A.3d 1006, 1012-13 (R.I. 2017).

2023The law of the case doctrine “is a rule of practice, based on sound policy that, when an issue is once * * * decided, that should be the end of the matter.” Barrett v. Baylor, 457 F.2d 119, 123 (7th Cir. 1972) (citing United States v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 339 U.S. 186, 198 (1950)); see also Quillen v. Macera, 160 A.3d 1006, 1012-13 (R.I. 2017).

2021To properly assert a claim for negligence, “a plaintiff must establish a legally cognizable duty owed by a defendant to a plaintiff, a breach of that duty, proximate causation between the conduct and the resulting injury, and the actual loss or damage.” Ouch v. Khea, 963 A.2d 630, 633 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Selwyn v. Ward, 879 A.2d 882, 886 (R.I. 2005)).

2021“When presented with an expanded record, it is within the trial justice’s sound discretion whether to consider the issue.” Felkner v. Rhode Island College, 203 A.3d 433, 445 (R.I. 2019) (quoting Ferguson v. Marshall Contractors, Inc., 745 A.2d 147, 152 (R.I. 2000)).