58 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2025 22 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Colliergreen2 sentences2024Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, "'once issues are decided by the court, those issues should not be relitigated or reconsidered unless they are clearly erroneous or unless some manifest injustice has been imposed.'" State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629, 633 , 952 P.2d 1326 (1998) (quoting Renfro v. City of Emporia, Kan., 732 F. Supp. 1116, 1117 [D. 2024Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, "'once issues are decided by the court, those issues should not be relitigated or reconsidered unless they are clearly erroneous or unless some manifest injustice has been imposed.'" State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629, 633 , 952 P.2d 1326 (1998) (quoting Renfro v. City of Emporia, Kan., 732 F. Supp. 1116, 1117 [D. | 8 | 25 |
Renfro v. City of Emporia, Kan.green2 sentences2024Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, "'once issues are decided by the court, those issues should not be relitigated or reconsidered unless they are clearly erroneous or unless some manifest injustice has been imposed.'" State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629, 633 , 952 P.2d 1326 (1998) (quoting Renfro v. City of Emporia, Kan., 732 F. Supp. 1116, 1117 [D. 1998In Renfro v. City of Emporia, Kan., 732 F. Supp. 1116, 1117 (D. | 3 | 3 |
Thoroughbred Associates, L.L.C. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., L.L.C.green2 sentences2021See Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193, 1212 , 308 P.3d 1238 (2013). 2021See Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193, 1212 , 308 P.3d 1238 (2013). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Cheeksgreen2 sentences2022State v. Cheeks, 313 Kan. 60 , 66, 482 P.3d 1129 (2021) (Under the law of the case doctrine, when a second appeal is brought to this court in the same case, the first decision is the settled law of the case on all questions involved in the first appeal, and reconsideration will not normally be given to such questions.). 2022State v. Cheeks, 313 Kan. 60 , 66, 482 P.3d 1129 (2021) (Under the law of the case doctrine, when a second appeal is brought to this court in the same case, the first decision is the settled law of the case on all questions involved in the first appeal, and reconsideration will not normally be given to such questions.). | 1 | 6 |
Venters v. Sellersgreen2 sentences2022"Under the doctrine of law of the case, . . . '[t]his court is firmly committed to the rule that the trial court cannot be required to either again review and pass upon what it has already determined or ignore its previous ruling.' '[O]nce an issue is decided by the court, it should not be relitigated or reconsidered unless it is clearly erroneous or would cause manifest injustice.' But law of the case doctrine is 'a discretionary policy which expresses the practice of the courts generally to refuse to reopen a matter already decided, without limiting their power to do so.' [Citations omitted. 2022"Under the doctrine of law of the case, . . . '[t]his court is firmly committed to the rule that the trial court cannot be required to either again review and pass upon what it has already determined or ignore its previous ruling.' '[O]nce an issue is decided by the court, it should not be relitigated or reconsidered unless it is clearly erroneous or would cause manifest injustice.' But law of the case doctrine is 'a discretionary policy which expresses the practice of the courts generally to refuse to reopen a matter already decided, without limiting their power to do so.' [Citations omitted. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Mortongreen2 sentences2017No. 25, 289 Kan. 160, 165-66 , 210 17 P.3d 105 (2009) (Kansas courts do not consider issues unless the issues are ripe, meaning they have "taken fixed and final shape rather than remaining nebulous and contingent"); State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 472-73 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (holding that in remand proceedings before the district court, the law of the case doctrine did not bar reconsideration and reversal of a motion in limine at the new trial because the issue was not addressed in the first appeal). 2017No. 25, 289 Kan. 160, 165-66 , 210 17 P.3d 105 (2009) (Kansas courts do not consider issues unless the issues are ripe, meaning they have "taken fixed and final shape rather than remaining nebulous and contingent"); State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 472-73 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (holding that in remand proceedings before the district court, the law of the case doctrine did not bar reconsideration and reversal of a motion in limine at the new trial because the issue was not addressed in the first appeal). | 1 | 4 |
Steele v. Guardianship & Conservatorship of Cristgreen2 sentences1998In Steele v. Guardianship & Conservatorship of Crist, 251 Kan. 712, 720-21 , 840 P.2d 1107 (1992), we disposed of an attempt to strike an earlier motion through res judicata by ruling: “A more appropriate basis for denying Steele’s motion to strike is embodied in the law of the case doctrine. 1998In Steele v. Guardianship & Conservatorship of Crist, 251 Kan. 712, 720-21 , 840 P.2d 1107 (1992), we disposed of an attempt to strike an earlier motion through res judicata by ruling: “A more appropriate basis for denying Steele’s motion to strike is embodied in the law of the case doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
McIlravy v. Kerr-McGee Coal Corp.green1 sentence2024McIlravy v. Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., 204 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Gannon v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Gannon v. State, 302 Kan. 739, 744 , 357 P.3d 873 (2015) (district court right for wrong reason). 2023See Gannon v. State, 302 Kan. 739, 744 , 357 P.3d 873 (2015) (district court right for wrong reason). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Clark, 313 Kan. 556 , 575, 486 P.3d 591 (2021) (recognizing law of the case doctrine is a common law rule); State v. Kleypas, 305 Kan. 224 , 245, 382 P.3d 373 (2016) (recognizing three exceptions to the law of the case doctrine). 12 The mandate rule is grounded in statute instead of common law. 2022See State v. Clark, 313 Kan. 556 , 575, 486 P.3d 591 (2021) (recognizing law of the case doctrine is a common law rule); State v. Kleypas, 305 Kan. 224 , 245, 382 P.3d 373 (2016) (recognizing three exceptions to the law of the case doctrine). 12 The mandate rule is grounded in statute instead of common law. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., State v. Williams , 299 Kan. 870 , 873, 326 P.3d 1070 (2014) (finding that "comparable offense" means "the offenses need only be comparable, not identical") (quoting State v. Vandervort , 276 Kan. 164 , 179, 72 P.3d 925 [2003], overruled on other grounds by Dickey , 301 Kan. 1018 (2015).) Because this exception applies, the doctrine of the law of the case does not prevent our review. 2018See, e.g., State v. Williams , 299 Kan. 870 , 873, 326 P.3d 1070 (2014) (finding that "comparable offense" means "the offenses need only be comparable, not identical") (quoting State v. Vandervort , 276 Kan. 164 , 179, 72 P.3d 925 [2003], overruled on other grounds by Dickey , 301 Kan. 1018 (2015).) Because this exception applies, the doctrine of the law of the case does not prevent our review. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dickeygreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., State v. Williams , 299 Kan. 870 , 873, 326 P.3d 1070 (2014) (finding that "comparable offense" means "the offenses need only be comparable, not identical") (quoting State v. Vandervort , 276 Kan. 164 , 179, 72 P.3d 925 [2003], overruled on other grounds by Dickey , 301 Kan. 1018 (2015).) Because this exception applies, the doctrine of the law of the case does not prevent our review. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vandervortgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., State v. Williams , 299 Kan. 870 , 873, 326 P.3d 1070 (2014) (finding that "comparable offense" means "the offenses need only be comparable, not identical") (quoting State v. Vandervort , 276 Kan. 164 , 179, 72 P.3d 925 [2003], overruled on other grounds by Dickey , 301 Kan. 1018 (2015).) Because this exception applies, the doctrine of the law of the case does not prevent our review. 2018See, e.g., State v. Williams , 299 Kan. 870 , 873, 326 P.3d 1070 (2014) (finding that "comparable offense" means "the offenses need only be comparable, not identical") (quoting State v. Vandervort , 276 Kan. 164 , 179, 72 P.3d 925 [2003], overruled on other grounds by Dickey , 301 Kan. 1018 (2015).) Because this exception applies, the doctrine of the law of the case does not prevent our review. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Conleygreen1 sentence2018See Conley , 287 Kan. at 698 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robertsongreen2 sentences2017See State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342, 344 , 312 P.3d 361 (2013); In re Care & Treatment of Sporn, 289 Kan. 681, 686 , 215 P.3d 615 (2009) ("The applicability of res judicata or collateral estoppel is a question of law, subject to unlimited review."); State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629, 634 , 952 P.2d 1326 (1998) (quoting Note, McDonald's Corp. v. Hawkins and the "Law of the Case" Doctrine in Arkansas, 50 Ark. 2017See State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342, 344 , 312 P.3d 361 (2013); In re Care & Treatment of Sporn, 289 Kan. 681, 686 , 215 P.3d 615 (2009) ("The applicability of res judicata or collateral estoppel is a question of law, subject to unlimited review."); State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629, 634 , 952 P.2d 1326 (1998) (quoting Note, McDonald's Corp. v. Hawkins and the "Law of the Case" Doctrine in Arkansas, 50 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Care & Treatment of Sporngreen2 sentences2017See State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342, 344 , 312 P.3d 361 (2013); In re Care & Treatment of Sporn, 289 Kan. 681, 686 , 215 P.3d 615 (2009) ("The applicability of res judicata or collateral estoppel is a question of law, subject to unlimited review."); State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629, 634 , 952 P.2d 1326 (1998) (quoting Note, McDonald's Corp. v. Hawkins and the "Law of the Case" Doctrine in Arkansas, 50 Ark. 2017See State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342, 344 , 312 P.3d 361 (2013); In re Care & Treatment of Sporn, 289 Kan. 681, 686 , 215 P.3d 615 (2009) ("The applicability of res judicata or collateral estoppel is a question of law, subject to unlimited review."); State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629, 634 , 952 P.2d 1326 (1998) (quoting Note, McDonald's Corp. v. Hawkins and the "Law of the Case" Doctrine in Arkansas, 50 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Dumler v. Kansas Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2017See Dumler v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 302 Kan. 420, 425 , 354 P.3d 519 (2015) (questions of law reviewed de novo). 2017See Dumler v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 302 Kan. 420, 425 , 354 P.3d 519 (2015) (questions of law reviewed de novo). | 1 | 1 |
| Kansas v. Marshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hudson v. Rileygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Allen v. Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Divisiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kleypasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Investcorp, L.P. v. Simpson Investment Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andrewsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Headley v. Challissgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Tax Protests of Midland Industries, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Guder
green
2 sentences2016State v. Guder, 293 Kan. 763, 765 , 267 P.3d 751 (2012); see United States v. Shipp, 644 *585 F.3d 1126, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Collier, 263 Kan. at 636 (explaining the mandate rule is really a subspecies of the law of the case doctrine). 2016State v. Guder, 293 Kan. 763, 765 , 267 P.3d 751 (2012); see United States v. Shipp, 644 *585 F.3d 1126, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Collier, 263 Kan. at 636 (explaining the mandate rule is really a subspecies of the law of the case doctrine). | 2 | 2016–2024 |
Castro v. United States
green
2 sentences2021This court is not free to fashion a remedy granting jurisdiction where it does not exist through statute. 20 While typically the law-of-the-case doctrine would prevent any challenge to the holdings of the court in a case that a party has not appealed, the law-of-the-case doctrine "cannot prohibit a court from disregarding an earlier holding in an appropriate case." Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 384 , 124 S. Ct. 786 , 157 L. 2021This court is not free to fashion a remedy granting jurisdiction where it does not exist through statute. 20 While typically the law-of-the-case doctrine would prevent any challenge to the holdings of the court in a case that a party has not appealed, the law-of-the-case doctrine "cannot prohibit a court from disregarding an earlier holding in an appropriate case." Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 384 , 124 S. Ct. 786 , 157 L. | 2 | 2019–2021 |
State v. Parry
green
2 sentences2020That appeal was assigned to a different panel of this court and a majority of that panel held that the law of the case doctrine "precludes the State from again litigating the constitutionality of the search." 51 Kan. 2017Both sides complied without challenging the panel's authority to raise the issue sua sponte. 3 A panel majority affirmed the district court's second suppression order by applying the law of the case doctrine, holding: "[I]ts application preclude[d] the State from again litigating the constitutionality of the search of Parry's apartment in the renewed prosecution." State v. Parry, 51 Kan. | 2 | 2017–2020 |
Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2020"The law of the case doctrine prevents a party from serially litigating an issue on appeal already presented and decided in the same proceeding." Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc., 56 Kan. 2020"The law of the case doctrine prevents a party from serially litigating an issue on appeal already presented and decided in the same proceeding." Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc., 56 Kan. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Shipe v. Public Wholesale Water Supply District No. 25
green
2 sentences2017No. 25, 289 Kan. 160, 165-66 , 210 P.3d 105 (2009) (Kansas courts do not consider issues unless the issues are ripe, meaning they have "taken fixed and final shape rather than remaining nebulous and contingent"); State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 472-73 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (holding that in remand proceedings before the district court, the law of the case doctrine did not bar reconsideration and reversal of a motion in limine at the new trial because the issue was not addressed in the first appeal). 2017No. 25, 289 Kan. 160, 165-66 , 210 17 P.3d 105 (2009) (Kansas courts do not consider issues unless the issues are ripe, meaning they have "taken fixed and final shape rather than remaining nebulous and contingent"); State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 472-73 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (holding that in remand proceedings before the district court, the law of the case doctrine did not bar reconsideration and reversal of a motion in limine at the new trial because the issue was not addressed in the first appeal). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Merrill
green
2 sentences2016In an early Kansas case recognizing the law of the case doctrine, this court observed the need for the discretionary power to reconsider a prior ruling, stating: "If an erroneous decision has been made, it ought to be corrected speedily, especially when it can be done before the litigation in which the error has been committed has terminated finally." Railway Co. v. Merrill, 65 Kan. 436, 451 , 70 P. 358 (1902); see Hudson v. Riley, 114 Kan. 332, 335 , 219 P. 499 (1923) ("If there was error in the ruling it is competent for 30 the court to correct it, and especially where it can be done before 2016In an early Kansas case recognizing the law of the case doctrine, this court observed the need for the discretionary power to reconsider a prior ruling, stating: "If an erroneous decision has been made, it ought to be corrected speedily, especially when it can be done before the litigation in which the error has been committed has terminated finally." Railway Co. v. Merrill, 65 Kan. 436, 451 , 70 P. 358 (1902); see Hudson v. Riley, 114 Kan. 332, 335 , 219 P. 499 (1923) ("If there was error in the ruling it is competent for 30 the court to correct it, and especially where it can be done before | 2 | 1998–2016 |
Henry v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
green
2 sentences2016In an early Kansas case recognizing the law of the case doctrine, this court observed the need for the discretionary power to reconsider a prior ruling, stating: "If an erroneous decision has been made, it ought to be corrected speedily, especially when it can be done before the litigation in which the error has been committed has terminated finally." Railway Co. v. Merrill, 65 Kan. 436, 451 , 70 P. 358 (1902); see Hudson v. Riley, 114 Kan. 332, 335 , 219 P. 499 (1923) ("If there was error in the ruling it is competent for 30 the court to correct it, and especially where it can be done before 2016In an early Kansas case recognizing the law of the case doctrine, this court observed the need for the discretionary power to reconsider a prior ruling, stating: "If an erroneous decision has been made, it ought to be corrected speedily, especially when it can be done before the litigation in which the error has been committed has terminated finally." Railway Co. v. Merrill, 65 Kan. 436, 451 , 70 P. 358 (1902); see Hudson v. Riley, 114 Kan. 332, 335 , 219 P. 499 (1923) ("If there was error in the ruling it is competent for 30 the court to correct it, and especially where it can be done before | 2 | 1998–2016 |
Renfro v. City of Emporia, Kansas
green
1 sentence2024Kan. 1990], aff'd 948 F.2d 1529 [1991]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v.Lundberg
green
1 sentence2024State v. Lundberg, 310 Kan. 165 , 170, 445 P.3d 1113 (2019). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Knowles v. FLEETWOOD MOTORHOMES OF CAL.
green
1 sentence2023App. 2d 573, 577 , 194 P.3d 38 (2008). 8 To begin, while the district court couched its ruling in terms of res judicata, it would be more accurate to say that the court applied the law of the case doctrine. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rinehart v. Morton Buildings, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021App. 2d 167 , 175, 464 P.3d 963 (2020) (holding that the application of the law of the case doctrine constitutes a question of law); Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145, 149 , 432 P.3d 647 (2019) (holding that statutory interpretation constitutes a question of law); Sierra Club v. Mosier, 305 Kan. 1090 , 1105, 391 P.3d 667 (2017) (holding that both the trial court's compliance with an appellate court's mandate and the interpretation of an appellate court's mandate constitute questions of law); Rinehart v. Morton Buildings, Inc., 297 Kan. 926, 942 , 305 P.3d 622 (2013) (holding that the tri 2021App. 2d 167 , 175, 464 P.3d 963 (2020) (holding that the application of the law of the case doctrine constitutes a question of law); Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145, 149 , 432 P.3d 647 (2019) (holding that statutory interpretation constitutes a question of law); Sierra Club v. Mosier, 305 Kan. 1090 , 1105, 391 P.3d 667 (2017) (holding that both the trial court's compliance with an appellate court's mandate and the interpretation of an appellate court's mandate constitute questions of law); Rinehart v. Morton Buildings, Inc., 297 Kan. 926, 942 , 305 P.3d 622 (2013) (holding that the tri | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Nauheim v. City of Topeka
green
2 sentences2021App. 2d 167 , 175, 464 P.3d 963 (2020) (holding that the application of the law of the case doctrine constitutes a question of law); Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145, 149 , 432 P.3d 647 (2019) (holding that statutory interpretation constitutes a question of law); Sierra Club v. Mosier, 305 Kan. 1090 , 1105, 391 P.3d 667 (2017) (holding that both the trial court's compliance with an appellate court's mandate and the interpretation of an appellate court's mandate constitute questions of law); Rinehart v. Morton Buildings, Inc., 297 Kan. 926, 942 , 305 P.3d 622 (2013) (holding that the tri 2021App. 2d 167 , 175, 464 P.3d 963 (2020) (holding that the application of the law of the case doctrine constitutes a question of law); Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145, 149 , 432 P.3d 647 (2019) (holding that statutory interpretation constitutes a question of law); Sierra Club v. Mosier, 305 Kan. 1090 , 1105, 391 P.3d 667 (2017) (holding that both the trial court's compliance with an appellate court's mandate and the interpretation of an appellate court's mandate constitute questions of law); Rinehart v. Morton Buildings, Inc., 297 Kan. 926, 942 , 305 P.3d 622 (2013) (holding that the tri | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.
green
2 sentences2020A district court "is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate." In re Sanford Fork & Tool, 160 U.S. 247, 255 , 16 S. Ct. 291 , 40 L. 2020A district court "is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate." In re Sanford Fork & Tool, 160 U.S. 247, 255 , 16 S. Ct. 291 , 40 L. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Kelly green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Rowland v. State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Hicks v. Oklahoma green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Heigele green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Davin v. Athletic Club of Overland Park green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. West green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Hodge v. Freeman neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Heflin v. United States green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Verity International, Ltd. v. Federal Trade Commission green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Thomas green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Drach v. Bruce green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Finical green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Rojas green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Edwards v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Jefferson green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| McTaggart v. Liberty Mutual Insurance green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Himely v. Rose green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Skillern's Executors v. May's Executors green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| City of Wichita v. Rice neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Shapiro v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Prairie State Bank v. Hoefgen green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Dyson v. Bux neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.