law of the case doctrine in Iowa

2026“Under the law of the case doctrine, ‘the legal principles announced and the views expressed by a reviewing court in an opinion, right or wrong, are binding throughout further progress of the case upon the litigants, the trial court and this court in later appeals.’” State v. Ragland, 812 N.W.2d 654, 658 (Iowa 2012) (citation omitted). 7 make an arrest—is required to invoke the exception.

2023The law of the case doctrine “represents the practice of courts to refuse to reconsider what has once been decided.” It stems from “a public policy against reopening matters which have already been decided.” Under the law of the case doctrine, “the legal principles announced and the views expressed by a reviewing court in an opinion, right or wrong, are binding throughout further progress of the case upon the litigants, the trial court and this court in later appeals.” Therefore, under the doctrine, “‘an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court

2021The law-of-the-case doctrine that the majority invokes has no application to this appeal because “the doctrine applies ‘only to those questions that were properly before us for consideration and passed on’ and ‘[a] question not passed on is not included’ under the doctrine.” Bahl v. City of Asbury, 725 N.W.2d 317, 321 (Iowa 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Lone Tree Cmty. Sch.

2021Under the law of the case doctrine, “an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case.” Bahl v. City of Asbury, 725 N.W.2d 317, 321 (Iowa 2006) (quoting United Fire & Cas.

2021Under the law of the case doctrine, “the legal principles announced and the views expressed by a reviewing court in an opinion, right or wrong, are binding throughout further progress of the case upon the litigants, the trial court and this court in later appeals.” State v. Ragland, 812 N.W.2d 654, 658 (Iowa 2012) (quoting State v. Grosvenor, 402 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Iowa 1987)).

2021Under the law of the case doctrine, “the legal principles announced and the views expressed by a reviewing court in an opinion, right or wrong, are binding throughout further progress of the case upon the litigants, the trial court and this court in later appeals.” State v. Ragland, 812 N.W.2d 654, 658 (Iowa 2012) (quoting State v. Grosvenor, 402 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Iowa 1987)).

2020See Wolfe v. Graether, 389 N.W.2d 643, 651 (Iowa 1986) (“[W]here the court of appeals has determined an issue of law necessary to the decision of a prior appeal, and its determination is not vacated by this court, the decision of that court is controlling as to that issue for purposes of further proceedings in both the district court and subsequent appeals.”).

2015See Cawthorn v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 806 N.W.2d 282, 286 (Iowa 2011); see also Wolfe v. Graether, 389 N.W.2d 643, 651 (Iowa 1986) (contrasting res judicata and law of the case). 5 The only issue raised by the Robins Trust in this appeal was the composition of the Commission.

2026As explained, the law-of-the-case doctrine applies both to (1) “issues raised and passed on in a prior appeal” and also (2) “ ‘matters necessarily involved in the determination of a question’ settled in a prior appeal for purposes of subsequent appeals.” Lee, 874 N.W.2d at 646 15 (second quoting In re Lone Tree Cmty. Sch.

2019Generally, the law of the case doctrine “applies only to issues raised and passed on in a prior appeal.” Lee v. State, 874 N.W.2d 631, 646 (Iowa 2016).

2006Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 475 N.W.2d 630, 632 (Iowa 1991).

1999“The doctrine of the law of the case represents the practice of courts to refuse to reconsider what has once been decided.” State v. Grosvenor, 402 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Iowa 1987); see also Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 475 N.W.2d 630, 632 (Iowa 1991) (noting that the law of the case doctrine may not apply when law has been changed by legislative enactment, or where controlling law has been clarified by judicial decisions following remand).

2017Ct. for Sioux Cty., 612 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Iowa 2000) (discussing the law-of- the-case doctrine).

2016Ct., 612 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Iowa 2000).’ When the law-of-the-case doctrine applies, “the legal principles announced and the views expressed by a reviewing court in an opinion, right or wrong, are binding throughout further progress of the case.” State v. Ragland, 812 N.W.2d 654, 658 (Iowa 2012) (quoting State v. Grosvenor, 402 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Iowa 1987)).

2023See New Midwest Rentals, LLC v. Iowa Dep’t of Commerce, 910 N.W.2d 643 , 649 n.4 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018) (“The law of the case doctrine ‘represents the practice of courts to refuse to reconsider what has once been decided.’” (citation omitted)).

2023See New Midwest Rentals, LLC v. Iowa Dep’t of Commerce, 910 N.W.2d 643 , 649 n.4 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018) (“The law of the case doctrine ‘represents the practice of courts to refuse to reconsider what has once been decided.’” (citation omitted)).

2019Further, “[i]ssues such as ‘subject matter jurisdiction’ or ‘appellate jurisdiction’ may be ‘particularly suitable for reconsideration.’ ” Kennedy v. Lubar, 273 F.3d 1293, 1299 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting 18 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478, at 799 n.32 (1981)).

2019Further, "[i]ssues such as 'subject matter jurisdiction' or 'appellate jurisdiction' may be 'particularly suitable for reconsideration.' " Kennedy v. Lubar , 273 F.3d 1293 , 1299 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting 18 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478, at 799 n.32 (1981)).

2019Our consideration of the jurisdictional issue is not precluded by the law of the case doctrine, which is “discretionary when applied to a coordinate court or the same court’s own decisions.” Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc., 132 F.3d 1147, 1150 (6th Cir. 1998).

2019Our consideration of the jurisdictional issue is not precluded by the law of the case doctrine, which is "discretionary when applied to a coordinate court or the same court's own decisions." Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc. , 132 F.3d 1147 , 1150 (6th Cir. 1998).

2015See Cawthorn v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 806 N.W.2d 282, 286 (Iowa 2011); see also Wolfe v. Graether, 389 N.W.2d 643, 651 (Iowa 1986) (contrasting res judicata and law of the case). 5 The only issue raised by the Robins Trust in this appeal was the composition of the Commission.

2015See Cawthorn v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 806 N.W.2d 282, 286 (Iowa 2011); see also Wolfe v. Graether, 389 N.W.2d 643, 651 (Iowa 1986) (contrasting res judicata and law of the case). 5 The only issue raised by the Robins Trust in this appeal was the composition of the Commission.

2011Dist., 159 N.W.2d 522, 526 (Iowa 1968))); Mass v. Mesic, 258 Iowa 1301, 1306 , 142 N.W.2d 389, 392-93 (1966) (holding that the law of the case doctrine applies “only to those questions that were properly before [the appellate court] for consideration and passed on” and that “[a] question not passed on” may be raised in later proceedings); State v. Di Paglia, 248 Iowa 97, 100 , 78 N.W.2d 472, 473 (1956) (holding that where the constitutionality of a statute had been determined in a prior appeal, the law of the case barred the defendant from continuing to argue that the statute was unconstitutio

2011See Bahl v. City of Asbury, 725 N.W.2d 317, 321 (Iowa 2006) (indicating that a “ ‘question not passed on is not included’ under the doctrine” (quoting In re Lone Tree Cmty. Sch. 8 Dist., 159 N.W.2d 522, 526 (Iowa 1968))); Mass v. Mesic, 258 Iowa 1301, 1306 , 142 N.W.2d 389 , 392–93 (1966) (holding that the law of the case doctrine applies “only to those questions that were properly before [the appellate court] for consideration and passed on” and that “[a] question not passed on” may be raised in later proceedings); State v. Di Paglia, 248 Iowa 97, 100 , 78 N.W.2d 472, 473 (1956) (holding that

2025State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2006).

2019In addition, the court adopts the court’s position in Francksen [v. Miller, 297 N.W.2d 375, 377 (Iowa 1980)] where the court denied the defense based upon the principles of res judicata.

2019Waiver of Homestead Rights After finding the Joneses’ homestead could not be sold to recover attorney fees under section 561.21(3), the court found the Joneses had waived their homestead rights in the property under theories of judicial estoppel, the law of the case doctrine, and res judicata. “[W]aiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Huisman v. Miedema, 644 N.W.2d 321, 324 (Iowa 2002) (quoting State v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Iowa 2000)). “[T]he burden of showing waiver rests on the party seeking to claim some advantage on account thereof.” Butler v. Cleland, 202 N.W.

2019Waiver of Homestead Rights After finding the Joneses’ homestead could not be sold to recover attorney fees under section 561.21(3), the court found the Joneses had waived their homestead rights in the property under theories of judicial estoppel, the law of the case doctrine, and res judicata. “[W]aiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Huisman v. Miedema, 644 N.W.2d 321, 324 (Iowa 2002) (quoting State v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Iowa 2000)). “[T]he burden of showing waiver rests on the party seeking to claim some advantage on account thereof.” Butler v. Cleland, 202 N.W.

2019See Heal, 2017 WL 1399861, at *3 ; see also Khan, 584 N.W.2d at 730 n.4; see generally Bahl v. City of Asbury, 725 N.W.2d 317, 321 (Iowa 2006) (discussing the law-of-the-case doctrine). “[W]here a gratuitous bailment exists, the bailee is only liable if a reasonable degree of care is not exercised.” Theis v. Kalvelage, No. 14-1568, 2015 WL 7567548 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015).

2019Waiver of Homestead Rights After finding the Joneses’ homestead could not be sold to recover attorney fees under section 561.21(3), the court found the Joneses had waived their homestead rights in the property under theories of judicial estoppel, the law of the case doctrine, and res judicata. “[W]aiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Huisman v. Miedema, 644 N.W.2d 321, 324 (Iowa 2002) (quoting State v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Iowa 2000)). “[T]he burden of showing waiver rests on the party seeking to claim some advantage on account thereof.” Butler v. Cleland, 202 N.W.

2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)).

2019See Heal, 2017 WL 1399861, at *3 ; see also Khan, 584 N.W.2d at 730 n.4; see generally Bahl v. City of Asbury, 725 N.W.2d 317, 321 (Iowa 2006) (discussing the law-of-the-case doctrine). “[W]here a gratuitous bailment exists, the bailee is only liable if a reasonable degree of care is not exercised.” Theis v. Kalvelage, No. 14-1568, 2015 WL 7567548 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2015).

2019First, Murray argues State v. Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d 549, 558 (Iowa 2006), constitutes a change in law by “hold[ing] that, if [an] act causing willful injury is the same act that causes [a] victim’s death, the former is merged into the murder and therefore cannot serve as the predicate felony for felony-murder purposes.” He asserts Heemstra should be applied retroactively to reverse his conviction.

2019But “‘law of the case’ arises only after a ruling becomes final.” City of Ankeny v. Armstrong Co., 353 N.W.2d 864, 867 (Iowa Ct. 11 App. 1984 ).

2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)).

2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)).

2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)).