law of the case doctrine in North Dakota

2023LLC v. Williams Cnty., 2022 ND 63, ¶ 6 , 971 N.W.2d 822 (stating under the law of the case doctrine, a party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved in a prior appeal); Frisk v. Frisk, 2006 ND 165, ¶ 14 , 719 N.W.2d 332 (“The law of the case doctrine applies when an appellate court has decided a legal question and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.”). [¶16] We conclude the district court had jurisdiction to enter the summary real estate disposition judgment.

2023LLC v. Williams Cnty., 2022 ND 63, ¶ 6 , 971 N.W.2d 822 (stating under the law of the case doctrine, a party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved in a prior appeal); Frisk v. Frisk, 2006 ND 165, ¶ 14 , 719 N.W.2d 332 (“The law of the case doctrine applies when an appellate court has decided a legal question and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.”). [¶16] We conclude the district court had jurisdiction to enter the summary real estate disposition judgment.

2013“As generally used, the law of the case is defined as ‘the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on. a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same’ ” and “the law of the case doctrine ‘encompasses not only those issues decided on the first appeal, but also those issues decided by the trial court prior to the first appeal which were not presented for review at the first appeal.’ ” Peop

2013“As generally used, the law of the case is defined as ‘the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on. a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same’ ” and “the law of the case doctrine ‘encompasses not only those issues decided on the first appeal, but also those issues decided by the trial court prior to the first appeal which were not presented for review at the first appeal.’ ” Peop

2015In Carlson v. Workforce Safety and Ins., 2012 ND 203 , ¶ 19, 821 N.W.2d 760 (“Carlson II”), we held that WSI’s exercise of its continuing jurisdiction was beyond the scope of our remand in Carlson I, and the law of the case doctrine precluded WSI from using its continuing jurisdiction to re-adjudicate whether Carlson was GMR’s employee.

2013We conclude the court erred in summarily dismissing Coppage’s evidentiary, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. 2011 ND 227 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-19, 807 N.W.2d 585 . [¶ 23] The law-of-the-case doctrine is “ ‘the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.’ ”

2015In Carlson v. Workforce Safety and Ins., 2012 ND 203 , ¶ 19, 821 N.W.2d 760 (“Carlson II”), we held that WSI’s exercise of its continuing jurisdiction was beyond the scope of our remand in Carlson I, and the law of the case doctrine precluded WSI from using its continuing jurisdiction to re-adjudicate whether Carlson was GMR’s employee.

2013We conclude the court erred in summarily dismissing Coppage’s evidentiary, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. 2011 ND 227 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-19, 807 N.W.2d 585 . [¶ 23] The law-of-the-case doctrine is “ ‘the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.’ ”

2022Co. v. Behm, 2020 ND 234, ¶ 8 , 951 N.W.2d 208 (res judicata and the law of the case apply when “the facts remain the same”). [¶13] The law of the case doctrine does not apply in separate actions.

2021Co. v. Behm, 2020 ND 234, ¶ 8 , 951 N.W.2d 208 (quoting Dale Expl., LLC v. Hiepler, 2020 ND 140 , ¶ 13, 945 N.W.2d 306 ). [¶10] The mandate rule is a more specific application of the law of the case doctrine.

2017Dep’t of Labor v. Riemers, 2010 ND 43 , ¶ 11, 779 N.W.2d 649 ). [¶ 12] In Estate of Johnson, 2015 ND 110, ¶ 19 , 863 N.W.2d 215 , this Court held North Dakota law authorized Mark “to lease and subsequently sell the farmland to Stuart Johnson so long as she was acting reasonably for the benefit of the interested persons, Mark, Scott Johnson, and Stuart Johnson, as residuary devisees under Jeanne Johnson’s will.” We remanded to the district court to “make further findings or provide a more detailed explanation of its determination that Mark was acting reasonably for the benefit of the interested

2017Dep’t of Labor v. Riemers, 2010 ND 43 , ¶ 11, 779 N.W.2d 649 ). [¶ 12] In Estate of Johnson, 2015 ND 110, ¶ 19 , 863 N.W.2d 215 , this Court held North Dakota law authorized Mark “to lease and subsequently sell the farmland to Stuart Johnson so long as she was acting reasonably for the benefit of the interested persons, Mark, Scott Johnson, and Stuart Johnson, as residuary devisees under Jeanne Johnson’s will.” We remanded to the district court to “make further findings or provide a more detailed explanation of its determination that Mark was acting reasonably for the benefit of the interested

2023Tr. dated Mar. 26, 1987, 2022 ND 92, ¶¶ 11-13 , 974 N.W.2d 372 (discussing the law of the case doctrine).

2023Tr. dated Mar. 26, 1987, 2022 ND 92, ¶¶ 11-13 , 974 N.W.2d 372 (discussing the law of the case doctrine).

2021Continental contends the judgment should be affirmed because these issues were not properly before the district court, the issues exceeded the scope of this Court’s mandate in the prior appeal, and the district court properly adhered to the law of the case doctrine and mandate rule on remand. [¶9] “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a valid, existing final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive on the parties . . . in all other actions with regard to the issues raised, or those that could have been raised, and determined therein.” Glass v. Glass, 2018 ND 14, ¶ 5 , 906 N

2021“The law of the case doctrine is based upon the theory of res judicata, and is grounded on judicial economy to prevent piecemeal and unnecessary appeals.” Glass v. Glass, 2018 ND 14, ¶ 5 , 906 N.W.2d 81 . [¶6] In Ring I, we explained section 75-01-03-03 is only “applicable to deaths before the Department of Human Services has issued a decision on a Medicaid application.” 2020 ND 217 , ¶ 6.

2021See Matter of Estate of Johnson, 2017 ND 162, ¶ 11 , 897 N.W.2d 921 (cleaned up) (stating that “[u]nder the law of the case doctrine, a party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved by the Court in the first appeal or which would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal”); Lee v. Lee, 2007 ND 147, ¶ 10 , 738 N.W.2d 479 (applying the law of the case doctrine to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction). [¶4] Further, primary residential responsibility of the children was addressed in the first appeal, and is barred by the law of the case do

2021See Matter of Estate of Johnson, 2017 ND 162, ¶ 11 , 897 N.W.2d 921 (cleaned up) (stating that “[u]nder the law of the case doctrine, a party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved by the Court in the first appeal or which would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal”); Lee v. Lee, 2007 ND 147, ¶ 10 , 738 N.W.2d 479 (applying the law of the case doctrine to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction). [¶4] Further, primary residential responsibility of the children was addressed in the first appeal, and is barred by the law of the case do

2021Dev., N. Am., L.L.C., 2004 ND 65, ¶ 6 , 677 N.W.2d 209 ).

2018“The law of the case doctrine is based upon the theory of res judicata, and is grounded on judicial economy to prevent piecemeal and unnecessary appeals.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted).

2020Baatz v. State, 2014 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 849 N.W.2d 225 ; Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 10 , 786 N.W.2d 702 ; see State v. Baltrusch, 2019 ND 259, ¶ 6 , 934 N.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 801 N.W.2d 429 (citing State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10 , 727 N.W.2d 769 ); see also State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d 523 (applying the mandate rule). [¶6] In his first appeal, Lyon did not argue insufficiency of the evidence; he only argued that he received an illegal sentence.

2017We agree. [¶ 11] “The law of the case doctrine applies when an appellate court has decided a legal question and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.” Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 9 , 786 N.W.2d 702 (quoting Frisk v. Frisk, 2006 ND 165, ¶ 14 , 719 N.W.2d 332 ).

2020Baatz v. State, 2014 ND 151, ¶ 17 , 849 N.W.2d 225 ; Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 10 , 786 N.W.2d 702 ; see State v. Baltrusch, 2019 ND 259, ¶ 6 , 934 N.W.2d 886 ; State v. Gefroh, 2011 ND 153, ¶ 6 , 801 N.W.2d 429 (citing State v. Duchene, 2007 ND 31, ¶ 10 , 727 N.W.2d 769 ); see also State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d 523 (applying the mandate rule). [¶6] In his first appeal, Lyon did not argue insufficiency of the evidence; he only argued that he received an illegal sentence.

2017We agree. [¶ 11] “The law of the case doctrine applies when an appellate court has decided a legal question and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.” Kortum v. Johnson, 2010 ND 153, ¶ 9 , 786 N.W.2d 702 (quoting Frisk v. Frisk, 2006 ND 165, ¶ 14 , 719 N.W.2d 332 ).

2013II [¶9] Southeastern argues the district court acted contrary to our mandate in Herzig I , 2010 ND 138 , 785 N.W.2d 863 , by failing to decide what portion of the sanctions was to compensate Southeastern. [¶10] The law of the case doctrine is “the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.” State v. Burckhard , 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d

2013II [¶ 9] Southeastern argues the district court acted contrary to our mandate in Herzig I, 2010 ND 138 , 785 N.W.2d 863 , by failing to decide what portion of the sanctions was to compensate Southeastern. [¶ 10] The law of the case doctrine is “the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.” State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶7 , 592 N.W.2d 5

2013We conclude the court erred in summarily dismissing Coppage’s evidentiary, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. 2011 ND 227 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-19, 807 N.W.2d 585 . [¶23] The law-of-the-case doctrine is “‘the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.’” St

2013We conclude the court erred in summarily dismissing Coppage’s evidentiary, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. 2011 ND 227 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-19, 807 N.W.2d 585 . [¶ 23] The law-of-the-case doctrine is “ ‘the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.’ ”

2013II [¶9] Southeastern argues the district court acted contrary to our mandate in Herzig I , 2010 ND 138 , 785 N.W.2d 863 , by failing to decide what portion of the sanctions was to compensate Southeastern. [¶10] The law of the case doctrine is “the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.” State v. Burckhard , 1999 ND 64, ¶ 7 , 592 N.W.2d

2013II [¶ 9] Southeastern argues the district court acted contrary to our mandate in Herzig I, 2010 ND 138 , 785 N.W.2d 863 , by failing to decide what portion of the sanctions was to compensate Southeastern. [¶ 10] The law of the case doctrine is “the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.” State v. Burckhard, 1999 ND 64, ¶7 , 592 N.W.2d 5

2013We conclude the court erred in summarily dismissing Coppage’s evidentiary, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. 2011 ND 227 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-19, 807 N.W.2d 585 . [¶23] The law-of-the-case doctrine is “‘the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.’” St

2013We conclude the court erred in summarily dismissing Coppage’s evidentiary, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. 2011 ND 227 , ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-19, 807 N.W.2d 585 . [¶ 23] The law-of-the-case doctrine is “ ‘the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the cause to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.’ ”

2012In Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2009 ND 87 , 765 N.W.2d 691 (“Carlson I ”), we concluded in a lengthy opinion examining the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct and the North Dakota Admission to Practice Rules that the request for reconsideration of WSI’s decision that Carlson was an employee rather than an independent contractor by the out-of-state lawyers for GMR Transportation Company was void: When our rules for the unauthorized practice of law and for pro hac vice admission are construed together in the context of proceedings before WSI and the requirement that a corporation

2012In Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2009 ND 87 , 765 N.W.2d 691 (“Carlson I ”), we concluded in a lengthy opinion examining the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct and the North Dakota Admission to Practice Rules that the request for reconsideration of WSI’s decision that Carlson was an employee rather than an independent contractor by the out-of-state lawyers for GMR Transportation Company was void: When our rules for the unauthorized practice of law and for pro hac vice admission are construed together in the context of proceedings before WSI and the requirement that a corporation

2011In its March 2010 decision, the district court did not rule that the $3,000 per month spousal support award was part of the parties’ property division, but specifically found at the end of its decision that “[wjhile there is a material change of circumstances in the business tax revenues for his two businesses, [Daniel Leverson] has not met his burden of proof as to any negative personal change of circumstances.” The court’s comment about the parties’ “exchange” of property interests for spousal support is entirely consistent with this Court’s frequent admonition that “ ‘[property division and

2011In its March 2010 decision, the district court did not rule that the $3,000 per month spousal support award was part of the parties’ property division, but specifically found at the end of its decision that “[wjhile there is a material change of circumstances in the business tax revenues for his two businesses, [Daniel Leverson] has not met his burden of proof as to any negative personal change of circumstances.” The court’s comment about the parties’ “exchange” of property interests for spousal support is entirely consistent with this Court’s frequent admonition that “ ‘[property division and

2011She argues the court ruled in March 2010 that the spousal support award was part of the parties’ property division when it said, “[i]n exchange for surrendering all of her interest in both businesses and all real and personal property associated with them, Daniel agreed to pay Karen $3,000 per month in spousal support offset by any amount of Social Security Karen receives when she begins to draw Social Security.” According to Karen Leverson, Daniel Leverson’s failure to appeal the court’s March 2010 ruling precludes him from challenging the court’s ruling in this appeal. [¶ 9] “Under the law o

2011She argues the court ruled in March 2010 that the spousal support award was part of the parties’ property division when it said, “[i]n exchange for surrendering all of her interest in both businesses and all real and personal property associated with them, Daniel agreed to pay Karen $3,000 per month in spousal support offset by any amount of Social Security Karen receives when she begins to draw Social Security.” According to Karen Leverson, Daniel Leverson’s failure to appeal the court’s March 2010 ruling precludes him from challenging the court’s ruling in this appeal. [¶ 9] “Under the law o

2011In its March 2010 decision, the district court did not rule that the $3,000 per month spousal support award was part of the parties’ property division, but specifically found at the end of its decision that “[wjhile there is a material change of circumstances in the business tax revenues for his two businesses, [Daniel Leverson] has not met his burden of proof as to any negative personal change of circumstances.” The court’s comment about the parties’ “exchange” of property interests for spousal support is entirely consistent with this Court’s frequent admonition that “ ‘[property division and

2011In its March 2010 decision, the district court did not rule that the $3,000 per month spousal support award was part of the parties’ property division, but specifically found at the end of its decision that “[wjhile there is a material change of circumstances in the business tax revenues for his two businesses, [Daniel Leverson] has not met his burden of proof as to any negative personal change of circumstances.” The court’s comment about the parties’ “exchange” of property interests for spousal support is entirely consistent with this Court’s frequent admonition that “ ‘[property division and