law of the case doctrine in Montana

2007See Scott v. Scott, 283 Mont. 169, 175-76 , 939 P.2d 998, 1001-02 (1997) (applying the law of the case doctrine to an appeal in a marital dissolution case); In re Marriage of Becker, 255 Mont. 357, 361 , 842 P.2d 332, 334 (1992) (same). ¶45 Finally, since the District Court did not adequately resolve the matter of Patsy’s contribution to the appreciation in the value of the stock in accordance with our remand in Bartseh I, it necessarily follows that the court cannot correctly determine an equitable distribution of the non-stock marital assets pursuant to our remand here. ¶46 Quite simply, whi

2007See Scott v. Scott, 283 Mont. 169, 175-76 , 939 P.2d 998, 1001-02 (1997) (applying the law of the case doctrine to an appeal in a marital dissolution case); In re Marriage of Becker, 255 Mont. 357, 361 , 842 P.2d 332, 334 (1992) (same). ¶45 Finally, since the District Court did not adequately resolve the matter of Patsy’s contribution to the appreciation in the value of the stock in accordance with our remand in Bartseh I, it necessarily follows that the court cannot correctly determine an equitable distribution of the non-stock marital assets pursuant to our remand here. ¶46 Quite simply, whi

1999“Collateral estoppel also prevents relitigation of determinative facts which were actually or necessarily decided in a prior action.” Haines, 265 Mont. at 288 , 876 P.2d at 636 . *50 ¶60 The law of the case doctrine “expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided.” In re Marriage of Scott (1997), 283 Mont. 169, 175 , 939 P.2d 998, 1001-02 . [W]here upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding a case presented, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to

1999“Collateral estoppel also prevents relitigation of determinative facts which were actually or necessarily decided in a prior action.” Haines, 265 Mont. at 288 , 876 P.2d at 636 . *50 ¶60 The law of the case doctrine “expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided.” In re Marriage of Scott (1997), 283 Mont. 169, 175 , 939 P.2d 998, 1001-02 . [W]here upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding a case presented, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to

2008The law of the case doctrine holds that: “[W]here, upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding a case presented states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the trial court and upon subsequent appeal.. . .” Zavarelli v. Might, 239 Mont. 120, 124 , 779 P.2d 489, 492 (1989) (quoting Carlson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 86 Mont. 78 , 281 P. 913, 914 (1929)).

2008The law of the case doctrine holds that: “[W]here, upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding a case presented states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the trial court and upon subsequent appeal.. . .” Zavarelli v. Might, 239 Mont. 120, 124 , 779 P.2d 489, 492 (1989) (quoting Carlson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 86 Mont. 78 , 281 P. 913, 914 (1929)).

2017The State asks us to reconsider this order, given that the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure do not provide for interim appeals, and that this is a challenge under statute, as opposed to constitutional double jeopardy. ¶13 Because we have already denied the State’s motion to dismiss, and ordered this appeal to proceed, we will address the merits pursuant to the law of the case doctrine. “[WJhere a decision has been rendered by the Supreme Court on a particular issue between the same parties in the same case, whether that decision is right or wrong, such decision is binding on the parties an

2017The State asks us to reconsider this order, given that the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure do not provide for interim appeals, and that this is a challenge under statute, as opposed to constitutional double jeopardy. ¶13 Because we have already denied the State’s motion to dismiss, and ordered this appeal to proceed, we will address the merits pursuant to the law of the case doctrine. “[WJhere a decision has been rendered by the Supreme Court on a particular issue between the same parties in the same case, whether that decision is right or wrong, such decision is binding on the parties an

2007Cooperative, Inc., 180 Mont. 434, 436 , 591 P.2d 196, 197 (1979); see also State v. Van Dyken, 242 Mont. 415 , 791 P.2d 1350 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920 , 111 S. Ct. 297 (1990) (this Court’s earlier decision rendered in response to defendant’s application for writ of supervisory control addressing the issue of failure to poll the jury before declaring a mistrial, remained binding and could not be relitigated under the law of the case doctrine)). ¶47 In this Court’s November 22, 2005 Order dismissing Lois’s appeal, we not only made the statement referred to in ¶ 15 of the Opinion, but we

2007Cooperative, Inc., 180 Mont. 434, 436 , 591 P.2d 196, 197 (1979); see also State v. Van Dyken, 242 Mont. 415 , 791 P.2d 1350 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920 , 111 S. Ct. 297 (1990) (this Court’s earlier decision rendered in response to defendant’s application for writ of supervisory control addressing the issue of failure to poll the jury before declaring a mistrial, remained binding and could not be relitigated under the law of the case doctrine)). ¶47 In this Court’s November 22, 2005 Order dismissing Lois’s appeal, we not only made the statement referred to in ¶ 15 of the Opinion, but we

2007See Scott v. Scott, 283 Mont. 169, 175-76 , 939 P.2d 998, 1001-02 (1997) (applying the law of the case doctrine to an appeal in a marital dissolution case); In re Marriage of Becker, 255 Mont. 357, 361 , 842 P.2d 332, 334 (1992) (same). ¶45 Finally, since the District Court did not adequately resolve the matter of Patsy’s contribution to the appreciation in the value of the stock in accordance with our remand in Bartseh I, it necessarily follows that the court cannot correctly determine an equitable distribution of the non-stock marital assets pursuant to our remand here. ¶46 Quite simply, whi

2007See Scott v. Scott, 283 Mont. 169, 175-76 , 939 P.2d 998, 1001-02 (1997) (applying the law of the case doctrine to an appeal in a marital dissolution case); In re Marriage of Becker, 255 Mont. 357, 361 , 842 P.2d 332, 334 (1992) (same). ¶45 Finally, since the District Court did not adequately resolve the matter of Patsy’s contribution to the appreciation in the value of the stock in accordance with our remand in Bartseh I, it necessarily follows that the court cannot correctly determine an equitable distribution of the non-stock marital assets pursuant to our remand here. ¶46 Quite simply, whi

2008According to Clark, his original sentence was also reviewable on remand, without ever formally appealing it, simply because it was “illegal.” I would adopt the State’s arguments and re-impose the District Court’s original sentence, as I do not believe a waiver occurred here. ¶52 The law of the case doctrine provides that “in deciding a case on appeal, when the Supreme Court states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent proceedings, both in the trial court and upon subs

2008According to Clark, his original sentence was also reviewable on remand, without ever formally appealing it, simply because it was “illegal.” I would adopt the State’s arguments and re-impose the District Court’s original sentence, as I do not believe a waiver occurred here. ¶52 The law of the case doctrine provides that “in deciding a case on appeal, when the Supreme Court states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent proceedings, both in the trial court and upon subs

2008The law of the case doctrine holds that: “[W]here, upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding a case presented states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the trial court and upon subsequent appeal.. . .” Zavarelli v. Might, 239 Mont. 120, 124 , 779 P.2d 489, 492 (1989) (quoting Carlson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 86 Mont. 78 , 281 P. 913, 914 (1929)).

2008The law of the case doctrine holds that: “[W]here, upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding a case presented states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the trial court and upon subsequent appeal.. . .” Zavarelli v. Might, 239 Mont. 120, 124 , 779 P.2d 489, 492 (1989) (quoting Carlson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 86 Mont. 78 , 281 P. 913, 914 (1929)).

2007Cooperative, Inc., 180 Mont. 434, 436 , 591 P.2d 196, 197 (1979); see also State v. Van Dyken, 242 Mont. 415 , 791 P.2d 1350 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920 , 111 S. Ct. 297 (1990) (this Court’s earlier decision rendered in response to defendant’s application for writ of supervisory control addressing the issue of failure to poll the jury before declaring a mistrial, remained binding and could not be relitigated under the law of the case doctrine)). ¶47 In this Court’s November 22, 2005 Order dismissing Lois’s appeal, we not only made the statement referred to in ¶ 15 of the Opinion, but we

2007Cooperative, Inc., 180 Mont. 434, 436 , 591 P.2d 196, 197 (1979); see also State v. Van Dyken, 242 Mont. 415 , 791 P.2d 1350 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920 , 111 S. Ct. 297 (1990) (this Court’s earlier decision rendered in response to defendant’s application *424 for writ of supervisory control addressing the issue of failure to poll the jury before declaring a mistrial, remained binding and could not be relitigated under the law of the case doctrine)). ¶57 Accordingly, we hold that the issue of whether the District Court erred in bifurcating the trial in this matter has already been decid

2007Cooperative, Inc., 180 Mont. 434, 436 , 591 P.2d 196, 197 (1979); see also State v. Van Dyken, 242 Mont. 415 , 791 P.2d 1350 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920 , 111 S. Ct. 297 (1990) (this Court’s earlier decision rendered in response to defendant’s application for writ of supervisory control addressing the issue of failure to poll the jury before declaring a mistrial, remained binding and could not be relitigated under the law of the case doctrine)). ¶47 In this Court’s November 22, 2005 Order dismissing Lois’s appeal, we not only made the statement referred to in ¶ 15 of the Opinion, but we

2007Cooperative, Inc., 180 Mont. 434, 436 , 591 P.2d 196, 197 (1979); see also State v. Van Dyken, 242 Mont. 415 , 791 P.2d 1350 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920 , 111 S. Ct. 297 (1990) (this Court’s earlier decision rendered in response to defendant’s application *424 for writ of supervisory control addressing the issue of failure to poll the jury before declaring a mistrial, remained binding and could not be relitigated under the law of the case doctrine)). ¶57 Accordingly, we hold that the issue of whether the District Court erred in bifurcating the trial in this matter has already been decid

2010See In re Estate of Snyder, 2009 MT 291, ¶ 6 , 352 Mont. 264 , 217 P.3d 1027 (“The law-of-the-case doctrine is based on policies of judicial economy and finality of judgments[;] a prior decision of this Court resolving an issue between the same parties is binding and may not be relitigated.”); Muri v. Frank, 2003 MT 316, ¶ 11 , 318 Mont. 269 , 80 P.3d 77 ; In re Potts, 2007 MT 236, ¶ 33 , 339 Mont. 186 , 171 P.3d 286 ; Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins.

2010See In re Estate of Snyder, 2009 MT 291, ¶ 6 , 352 Mont. 264 , 217 P.3d 1027 (“The law-of-the-case doctrine is based on policies of judicial economy and finality of judgments[;] a prior decision of this Court resolving an issue between the same parties is binding and may not be relitigated.”); Muri v. Frank, 2003 MT 316, ¶ 11 , 318 Mont. 269 , 80 P.3d 77 ; In re Potts, 2007 MT 236, ¶ 33 , 339 Mont. 186 , 171 P.3d 286 ; Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins.

2020State v. Black, 245 Mont. 39, 44 , 798 P.2d 530, 533 (1990).

2020State v. Black, 245 Mont. 39, 44 , 798 P.2d 530, 533 (1990).

2010Murphy Homes, Inc. v. Muller, 2007 MT 140, ¶¶ 50-51, 56 , 337 Mont. 411 , 162 P.3d 106 . 1 Our cases have consistently applied the law of the case doctrine 2 . ¶75 Our previous Order instructed that, once the District Court had ruled on the dispositive issues of the case, “Plains Grains [could] decide whether to appeal and whether to seek a stay of the District Court’s final judgment or an injunction pending appeal.” The District Court was instructed to enter findings of fact, conclusions of law and rationale regarding Plains Grains’ request for a stay or injunction.

2010Murphy Homes, Inc. v. Muller, 2007 MT 140, ¶¶ 50-51, 56 , 337 Mont. 411 , 162 P.3d 106 . 1 Our cases have consistently applied the law of the case doctrine 2 . ¶75 Our previous Order instructed that, once the District Court had ruled on the dispositive issues of the case, “Plains Grains [could] decide whether to appeal and whether to seek a stay of the District Court’s final judgment or an injunction pending appeal.” The District Court was instructed to enter findings of fact, conclusions of law and rationale regarding Plains Grains’ request for a stay or injunction.

2002The doctrine does not extend so far as to include matter which was consequential, incidental, or not decided by the court. [Emphasis added.] Phalen v. Rilley (1970), 156 Mont. 91, 93 , 475 P.2d 998, 999 (quoting O’Brien v. Great Northern R.

2002The doctrine does not extend so far as to include matter which was consequential, incidental, or not decided by the court. [Emphasis added.] Phalen v. Rilley (1970), 156 Mont. 91, 93 , 475 P.2d 998, 999 (quoting O’Brien v. Great Northern R.

2015State v. Holliday, 183 Mont. 251, 256 , 598 P.2d 1132, 1135 (1979).

2015State v. Holliday, 183 Mont. 251, 256 , 598 P.2d 1132, 1135 (1979).

2014See State v. Bomar, 2008 MT 91, ¶ 33 , 342 Mont. 281 , 182 P.3d 47 (“A party waives the right to appeal an alleged error when the appealing party acquiesced in, actively participated in or did not object to the asserted error.”); State v. Harris, 1999 MT 115, ¶ 32 , 294 Mont. 397 , 983 P.2d *289 881 (“We will not put a district court in error for an action in which the appealing party acquiesced or actively participated.”). ¶18 For these reasons, the law of the case doctrine did not prohibit the District Court from specifying the total amount of restitution. (b) M.

2014See State v. Bomar, 2008 MT 91, ¶ 33 , 342 Mont. 281 , 182 P.3d 47 (“A party waives the right to appeal an alleged error when the appealing party acquiesced in, actively participated in or did not object to the asserted error.”); State v. Harris, 1999 MT 115, ¶ 32 , 294 Mont. 397 , 983 P.2d *289 881 (“We will not put a district court in error for an action in which the appealing party acquiesced or actively participated.”). ¶18 For these reasons, the law of the case doctrine did not prohibit the District Court from specifying the total amount of restitution. (b) M.