law of the case doctrine in Florida

2026See Frantin v. MVS Media Grp., LLC, 390 So. 3d 75 , 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“MVS’s supplemental complaint contained sufficient jurisdictional facts to fall within the ambit of Florida’s long arm statute.”); Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (“The doctrine of the law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.”); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985) (“So long as a commercial actor’s efforts are ‘purpos

2025Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 106 (Fla. 2001) (“Under the law of the case doctrine, a trial court is bound to follow prior rulings of the appellate court as long as the facts on which such decision are based continue to be the facts of the case.”).

2026See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla. 2003) (holding that collateral estoppel bars re-litigation of a claim in a postconviction context); White v. State, 651 So. 2d 726, 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (holding that the law of the case doctrine prevents a defendant from challenging his sentence in a rule 3.800 motion after failing to prevail on the same issue in his plenary appeal).

2025The State suggests Jackson’s arguments “more aptly sound under the law-of-the-case doctrine.” But that doctrine “do[es] not apply unless the issues are decided on appeal.” State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla. 2003) (citing Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001)).

2025See Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105-06 (Fla. 2001) (“The doctrine of the law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.”) (citing Greene v. Massey, 384 So. 2d 24, 28 (Fla.1980)) (“All points of law which have been adjudicated become the law of the case and are, except in exceptional circumstances, no longer open for discussion or consideration in subsequent proceedings in the case.”).

2024“Under the law of the case doctrine, a trial court is bound to follow prior rulings of the appellate court as long as the facts on which such decision are based continue to be the facts of the case.” Fla. 6 Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 106 (Fla. 2001); see also Greene v. Massey, 384 So. 2d 24, 28 (Fla. 1980) (“All points of law which have been adjudicated become the law of the case . . . .”).

2013However, the law of the case doctrine “provides that an appellate court has the power to reconsider and correct an erroneous ruling that has become the law of the case where a prior ruling would result in a ‘manifest injustice.’ ” Juliano, 801 So.2d at 106 (citing Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So.2d 1, 5 (Fla.1965)); see also Spectrum Interiors, Inc. v. Exterior Walls, Inc., 65 So.3d 543 , 545 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (citing Juliano, 801 So.2d at 106 ; Strazzulla, 177 So.2d at 1 ) (“An appellate court does have the power to reconsider and correct an erroneous ruling if necessary to prevent a ma

2013However, the law of the case doctrine “provides that an appellate court has the power to reconsider and correct an erroneous ruling that has become the law of the case where a prior ruling would result in a ‘manifest injustice.’ ” Juliano, 801 So.2d at 106 (citing Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So.2d 1, 5 (Fla.1965)); see also Spectrum Interiors, Inc. v. Exterior Walls, Inc., 65 So.3d 543 , 545 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (citing Juliano, 801 So.2d at 106 ; Strazzulla, 177 So.2d at 1 ) (“An appellate court does have the power to reconsider and correct an erroneous ruling if necessary to prevent a ma

2015Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, a lower court cannot change the law of the case as established by the highest court hearing the case, and a trial court must “follow prior rulings of the appellate court as long as the facts on which such decision are based continue to be the facts of the case.” Juliano, 801 So.2d at 106 ; see also Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 452 So.2d 550 (Fla.1984).

2004"Under the law of the case doctrine, all questions of law decided by an appellate court become the law of the case and, except in extraordinary circumstances, must be followed in subsequent proceedings in both the trial court and the appellate court." Tiede v. Satterfield, 870 So.2d 225, 227-28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 452 So.2d 550 (Fla.1984)).

2023The Florida Supreme Court has explained the scope of the law of the case doctrine as follows: “the doctrine is ‘limited to rulings on questions of law actually presented and considered on a former appeal.’” Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 106 (Fla. 2001) (quoting U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So. 2d 1061, 1063 (Fla. 1983)).

2023“A corollary of the law of the case doctrine is that a lower court is not precluded from passing on issues that ‘have not necessarily been determined and become law of the case.’” Id. (quoting Greene v. Massey, 384 So. 2d 24, 27 (Fla. 1980)); see also Philip J.

2014“In our view, the law of the case doctrine is viable in those post-conviction proceedings wherein a defendant requests review of a specific claim of error which has been already raised and decided by an appellate court.” Raley v. State, 675 So.2d 170, 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

2003The law of the case doctrine applies to a rule 3.800(a) motion when the defendant seeks to litigate a specific issue adversely decided in an earlier postconviction proceeding, even if the issue pertains to the legality of the sentence, see Raley v. State, 675 So.2d 170, 173-74 (Fla. 5th DCA), cause dismissed, 678 So.2d 1287 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 683 So.2d 484 (Fla.1996), so long as the earlier motion was considered on the merits and not denied on procedural grounds, cf. Kelly v. State, 739 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(consideration not barred by law of the case because motion was first d

2022See DeLeon v. State, 3D21-2342, 2022 WL 946199 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 30, 2022) (affirming trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for rehearing on sentencing issue); DeLeon v. State, 3D21-0905, 2021 WL 2425437 (Fla. 3d DCA May 6, 2021) (denying appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus on same); Swain v. State, 911 So. 2d 140 , 143–44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“While successive 3.800(a) motions are permitted even though the claims are those which could have been raised in previously filed 3.800(a) motions, . . . the law of the case doctrine prevents a litigant from relitigating the same issues previo

2022See Jordan v. State, 225 So. 3d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Jordan v. State, 319 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); see also Swain v. State, 911 So. 2d 140, 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 289 (Fla. 2003)) (“The law of the case doctrine requires that ‘questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.’”).

2009Although the doctrine is “a self-imposed restraint that courts abide by,” State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715, 720 (Fla.1997), once made by the appellate court, such decisions “will seldom be ... reconsidered or reversed.... ” “Under the law of the case doctrine, a trial court is bound to follow prior rulings of the appellate court as long as the facts on which such decision are based continue to be the facts of the case.” Juliano, 801 So.2d at 102 .

2002We agree with the state that our opinion is the law of the case, see generally State v. Owen, 696 So.2d 715, 720 (Fla.1997) (explaining the law of the case doctrine), and decline appellant's suggestion to reconsider that ruling.

2025U.S. LLC v. Papandopoles, 949 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th 4 “Whether the law of the case doctrine applies is a question of law, and therefore our standard of review is de novo.” Pompano Masonry Corp. v. Anastasi, 125 So. 3d 210, 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). 6 DCA 2007) (quoting Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So. 2d 482, 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)).

2024See Pompano Masonry Corp. v. Anastasi, 125 So. 3d 210, 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“Whether the law of the case doctrine applies is a question of law, and therefore our standard of review is de novo.” (citation omitted)).

2024See Garcia v. State, 69 So. 3d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“[A] defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue that already has been decided on the merits.”); Bueno v. Bueno de Khawly, 677 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“We affirm the judgment on appeal, as we are governed by the doctrine of law of the case. ‘Simply stated, that doctrine is that those points of law adjudicated in a prior appeal are binding in order to promote stability of judicial decisions and to avoid piecemeal litigation.’” (quoting Jacobson v. Humana Medical Plan, Inc., 636 So. 2d 120, 121 (Fla. 3d

2013See also Buchman v. Canard, 926 So.2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (noting that doctrine of law of the case applies to a per curiam decision of the appellate courts); Bueno v. Bueno de Khawly, 677 So.2d 3, 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that “[a] per curiam decision of the appellate court is the law of the case between the same parties on the same issues and facts, and determines all issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned in the court’s opinion or not” (quoting Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So.2d 178, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995))).

2011Corp. v. Elliott, 924 So.2d 834, 837-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (same); Hunter v. Dennies Contracting Co., 693 So.2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (declining to consider the sufficiency of the evidence presented at a hearing that resulted in the entry of an unappealed order for a temporary injunction on an appeal from a subsequent order denying a motion to dissolve or modify the temporary injunction); Buchman v. Canard, 926 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (noting that the doctrine of law of the case applies to a per curiam decision of the appellate court); Calicchio v. Calicchio, 693 So.2d 1124, 11

2007As the second district stated in Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Elliott, 924 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), the law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that "questions of law that have actually been decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and in the trial court through all subsequent stages of the proceedings." Id. at 837 .

2015It provides that “questions of law decided on appeal to a court of ultimate resort must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.” McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Phila., 119 Fla. 718 , 162 So. 323, 327 (1935); see also Juliano, 801 So.2d at 105 (“The doctrine of the law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.”).

2015It provides that “questions of law decided on appeal to a court of ultimate resort must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.” McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Phila., 119 Fla. 718 , 162 So. 323, 327 (1935); see also Juliano, 801 So.2d at 105 (“The doctrine of the law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.”).

2022Wagner v. Baron, 64 So. 2d 267, 268 (Fla. 1953) (noting that the law of the case doctrine “must give way where there has been a change in the fundamental controlling legal principles”). -7- Such a change occurred when we decided in Phillips that Hall did not warrant retroactive application.

1999This is so because the law of the case doctrine is not a rule of jurisdiction; instead it is a "rule[] of convenience designed to prevent repetitious law suits over matters which have once been decided and which have remained substantially static." City of Miami v. Bell, 606 So.2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(quoting Wagner v. Baron, 64 So.2d 267 (Fla.1953) (internal quotations omitted), quashed in part on other grounds, 634 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1994)).

2008Pleasure v. State, 931 So.2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also Kelly v. State, 739 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (recognizing that the law of the case doctrine does not bar a successive 3.800(a) motion if the previous motion was denied on procedural grounds).

2004See Kelly v. State, 739 So.2d 1164, 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(holding that “[s]uccessive 3.800(a) motions re-addressing issues previously considered and rejected on the merits and reviewed on appeal are barred by the doctrine of law of the case”).

2017"The law of the case doctrine applies only to issues actually considered and decided in a prior appeal involving the same case." Bloco, Inc. v. Porterfield Oil Co., 990 So. 2d -6- 578, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing Analyte Diagnostics, Inc. v. D'Angelo, 792 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)).

2017“The law of the case doctrine applies only to issues actually considered and decided in a prior appeal involving the same case.” Bloco, Inc. v. Porterfield Oil Co., 990 So.2d 578, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing Analyte Diagnostics, Inc. v. D’Angelo, 792 So.2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)).

2016See Dade County Classroom Teachers’ Ass’n v. Rubin, 238 So.2d 284, 289 (Fla.1970); Dicks v. Jenne, 740 So.2d 576, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

2003Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 105 (Fla.2001); Dade County Classroom Teachers' Ass'n v. Rubin, 238 So.2d 284, 289 (Fla.1970); Dicks ex rel.

2013See generally Florida Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 106 (Fla.2001) (recognizing that “[ujnder the law of the case doctrine, a trial court is bound to follow prior rulings of the appellate court as long as the facts on which such decision are based continue to be the facts of the case”); Henry v. State, 649 So.2d 1361, 1364 (Fla.1994).

2009The Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held that procedural bars, such as the law of the case doctrine, must give way “where reliance on the prior decision would result in manifest injustice.” State v. Sigler, 967 So.2d 835, 840 (Fla.2007) (emphasis added) (citing Henry v. State, 649 So.2d 1361, 1364 (Fla.1994) (citing Preston v. State, 444 So.2d 939, 942 (Fla.1984)); Greene v. Massey, 384 So.2d 24, 28 (Fla.1980); Steele v. Pendarvis Chevrolet, Inc., 220 So.2d 372, 376 (Fla.1969)); see Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1965). 4 .

2014See Lawton v. State, 731 So.2d 60, 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

2001See, e.g., Lawton v. State, 731 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that substantive due process requires that a patently illegal sentence be corrected despite the law of the case doctrine).

2001Co., 502 So.2d 1310, 1311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (same). [5] In a subsequent article, Elligett and Schopp elaborate on the continuing confusion with the law of the case doctrine in the appellate courts.

1991They rely, however, on this court's opinion in Valsecchi v. Proprietors Insurance Co., 502 So.2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), which states in part that "the law of the case principle is also applied where the issue could have been but was not raised ... or where the question was decided by implication." Id. at 1311 (citations omitted).

2019See State v. Akins, 69 So. 3d 261, 268 (Fla. 2011) (holding that an illegal sentence that violates the prohibitions against double jeopardy is an exceptional circumstance for which an appellate court can reconsider a point of law previously decided); Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105-06 (Fla. 2001) (holding that an intervening legal decision may establish an exception to the law of the case doctrine); Smith v. State, 214 So. 3d 703, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (considering whether to revisit the law of the case on a double jeopardy problem in light of Shelley); Lago v. State, 9

2018Akins, 69 So. 3d at 268 ; see also Coleman v. State, 128 So. 3d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (rejecting the State’s argument that the law of the case doctrine barred the appellate court from reconsidering its prior denial of a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, citing Akins). 16 the Florida Supreme Court’s disposition in Haygood II, or (ii) denied Marshall’s petition with an opinion or citiation to this Court’s Cubelo I decision, Marshall could have sought and obtained relief from the Florida Supreme Court.

2007Sigler, however, countered that pursuant to Zolache v. State, 687 So.2d 298, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), appellate courts have the power to correct significant mistakes in spite of the law of the case doctrine.

2006See Zolache v. State, 687 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

2025Steele v. Pendarvis Chevrolet, Inc., 220 So. 2d 372, 376 (Fla. 1969). 6 None of these limited exceptions apply here.

2009The Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held that procedural bars, such as the law of the case doctrine, must give way “where reliance on the prior decision would result in manifest injustice.” State v. Sigler, 967 So.2d 835, 840 (Fla.2007) (emphasis added) (citing Henry v. State, 649 So.2d 1361, 1364 (Fla.1994) (citing Preston v. State, 444 So.2d 939, 942 (Fla.1984)); Greene v. Massey, 384 So.2d 24, 28 (Fla.1980); Steele v. Pendarvis Chevrolet, Inc., 220 So.2d 372, 376 (Fla.1969)); see Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1965). 4 .

2024See Garcia v. State, 69 So. 3d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“[A] defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue that already has been decided on the merits.”); Bueno v. Bueno de Khawly, 677 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“We affirm the judgment on appeal, as we are governed by the doctrine of law of the case. ‘Simply stated, that doctrine is that those points of law adjudicated in a prior appeal are binding in order to promote stability of judicial decisions and to avoid piecemeal litigation.’” (quoting Jacobson v. Humana Medical Plan, Inc., 636 So. 2d 120, 121 (Fla. 3d

2012Plan, Inc., 636 So.2d 120, 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). .

2023Regul. of State, 276 So. 2d 823, 826 (Fla. 1973) (holding “obiter dictum” included in the appellate court’s opinion “was not essential to the decision of that court and [thus] is without force as precedent”); Golden v. State, 528 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that an appellate court’s dicta cannot implicate “[t]he doctrine of the law of the case [as it] applies only to issues actually or impliedly presented and decided on appeal, and not to mere dicta, or to issues not considered”). 3

1997See 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 421 (1978).” Golden v. State, 528 So.2d 50, 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry.

2025U.S. LLC v. Papandopoles, 949 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th 4 “Whether the law of the case doctrine applies is a question of law, and therefore our standard of review is de novo.” Pompano Masonry Corp. v. Anastasi, 125 So. 3d 210, 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). 6 DCA 2007) (quoting Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So. 2d 482, 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)).

2007In Alford v. Summerlin, 423 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the First District explained: [T]he doctrine of the law of the case [states] that whatever is once established between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts in the case. *301 Id. at 485 (citing McGregor v. Provident Trust Co., 119 Fla. 718 , 162 So. 323 (1935); Rosenkrantz v. Hall, 172 So.2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)).

2014“The law-of-the-case doctrine was meant to apply to matters litigated to finality, not to matters that remain essentially unresolved due to the erroneous ruling of a lower court.” Id.

2012As the supreme court explained, “the law-of-the-case doctrine was meant to apply to matters litigated to finality, not to matters that remain essentially unresolved due to the erroneous ruling of a lower court.” Id. at 180 .

1993See Harris v. Lewis State Bank, 482 So.2d 1378, 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

1990Harris v. Lewis State Bank, 482 So.2d 1378 .