law of the case doctrine in Washington

2026“The law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that 22 No. 86754-7-I/23 once there is an appellate holding enunciating a principle of law, that holding will be followed in subsequent stages of the same litigation.” Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 41 , 123 P.3d 844 (2005).

2026“In its most common form, the law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that once there is an appellate holding enunciating a principle of law, that holding will be followed in subsequent stages of the same litigation.” Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 41 , 123 P.3d 844 (2005).

2026Under the law of the case doctrine, “‘the State assumes the burden of proving otherwise unnecessary elements of the offense when such added elements are included without objection in the “to convict” [jury] instruction.’” State v. Johnson, 188 Wn.2d 742 , 756, 399 P.3d 507 (2017) (quoting State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998)).

2026Further, the law of the case doctrine’s requirement that the State prove every element in a jury instruction to which it does not voice opposition “benefits the system by encouraging trial counsel to review all jury instructions to ensure their propriety 41 86238-3-I/42 before the instructions are given to the jury.” Hickman, 135 Wn.2d at 105 ; see CrR 6.15(c).

2025For several reasons, Roberts does not establish an entitlement to appellate relief on this claim. 1 Initially, the law of the case doctrine precludes our consideration of this alleged basis for relief: “ ‘It is also the rule that questions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the cause.’ ” State v. Worl, 129 Wn.2d 416, 425 , 918 P.2d 905 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 4 No. 87078-5-I/5 Folsom v. Spok

2025For several reasons, Roberts does not establish an entitlement to appellate relief on this claim. 1 Initially, the law of the case doctrine precludes our consideration of this alleged basis for relief: “ ‘It is also the rule that questions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the cause.’ ” State v. Worl, 129 Wn.2d 416, 425 , 918 P.2d 905 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 4 No. 87078-5-I/5 Folsom v. Spok

2026“The law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that 22 No. 86754-7-I/23 once there is an appellate holding enunciating a principle of law, that holding will be followed in subsequent stages of the same litigation.” Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 41 , 123 P.3d 844 (2005).

2026“In its most common form, the law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that once there is an appellate holding enunciating a principle of law, that holding will be followed in subsequent stages of the same litigation.” Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 41 , 123 P.3d 844 (2005).

2024See State v. Clark, 143 - 19 - No. 85252-3-I/ 20 Wn.2d 731, 745 , 24 P.3d 1006 (2001) (“‘Where there has been a determination of the applicable law in a prior appeal, the law of the case doctrine ordinarily precludes redeciding the same legal issues in a subsequent appeal.’” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 256, 263 , 759 P.2d 1196 (1988))).

2024See State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 745 , 24 P.3d 1006 (2001) (“‘Where there has been a determination of the applicable law in a prior appeal, the law of the case doctrine ordinarily precludes redeciding the same legal issues in a subsequent appeal.’” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 256, 263 , 759 P.2d 1196 (1988))).

2024See State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 745 , 24 P.3d 1006 (2001) (“‘Where there has been a determination of the applicable law in a prior appeal, the law of the case doctrine ordinarily precludes redeciding the same legal issues in a subsequent appeal.’” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 256, 263 , 759 P.2d 1196 (1988))).

2018State v. Clark , 143 Wash.2d 731 , 745, 24 P.3d 1006 (2001). " '[Q]uestions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a *639 subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the cause.' " Folsom v. County of Spokane , 111 Wash.2d 256 , 263, 759 P.2d 1196 (1988) (quoting Adamson v. Traylor , 66 Wash.2d 338 , 339, 402 P.2d 499 (1965) ).

2022The law of the case doctrine relates to “ ‘the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal.’ ” Id. at 56 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 2010-2329, p. 14 (La. 7/1/2011), 66 So.3d 438, 448 ). b.

2015After that, rules of res judicata determine whether a prior determination of law or fact is binding.”). ¶47 “ ‘The law of the case principle relates to (a) the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial, (b) the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at trial on remand, and (c) the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal.’ ” Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 2010-2329 (La. 7/1/11); 66 So. 3d 438, 448 (quoting Petition of Sewerage & Water Bd., 278 So. 2d 81, 84 (La. 1973)); accord Municipality of San Juan v.

2026Under the law of the case doctrine, “‘the State assumes the burden of proving otherwise unnecessary elements of the offense when such added elements are included without objection in the “to convict” [jury] instruction.’” State v. Johnson, 188 Wn.2d 742 , 756, 399 P.3d 507 (2017) (quoting State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998)).

2020In State v. Hickman, our Supreme Court determined that “a defendant may assign error [on appeal] to elements added under the law of the case doctrine.” 12 Under the law of the case doctrine, jury instructions not objected to become the 8 Id. at 8. 911 W ASHINGTON PRACTICE: W ASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 37.04 (4th ed. 2016) (WPIC). 10 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 308 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 11 State v. Handburgh, 119 Wn.2d 284, 293 , 830 P.2d 641 (1992). 12 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998). 4 No. 79043-9-I/5 law of the case.13 In Hickman, “the State acquiesced to ju

2026The law of the case doctrine “refers to ‘the binding effect of determinations made by the appellate court on further proceedings in the trial court on remand.’” Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 113 , 829 P.2d 746 (1992) (quoting 15 LEWIS H.

2026The law of the case doctrine “refers to ‘the binding effect of determinations made by the appellate court on further proceedings in the trial court on remand.’” Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 113 , 829 P.2d 746 (1992) (quoting 15 LEWIS H.

2025For several reasons, Roberts does not establish an entitlement to appellate relief on this claim. 1 Initially, the law of the case doctrine precludes our consideration of this alleged basis for relief: “ ‘It is also the rule that questions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the cause.’ ” State v. Worl, 129 Wn.2d 416, 425 , 918 P.2d 905 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 4 No. 87078-5-I/5 Folsom v. Spok

2017IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON P+.3 el)C) STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) DIVISION ONE C- rT1--1 - CD Respondent, ) ) No. 74767-3-1 7> v. -13 rri ) 33. co ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ALAN JOHN NORD, ) 9 C7CA -4C, ) CO Appellant. ) FILED: June 19, 2017 ) DWYER, J. — "Under the doctrine of law of the case,' as applied in this jurisdiction, the parties, the trial court, and this court are bound by the holdings of the court on a prior appeal until such time as they are 'authoritatively overruled." Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 414 P.2d 1013 (1966)(quoting Adamson v. Traylor, 66 Wn.

2025LAW OF THE CASE “‘The law of the case principle relates to (a) the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial, (b) the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at trial on remand, and (c) the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal.’” Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc., 192 Wn.

2024As used here, the law of the case doctrine stands for the proposition that a legal decision of an “ ‘appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed . . . on remand.’ ” Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc., 192 Wn.

2025For several reasons, Roberts does not establish an entitlement to appellate relief on this claim. 1 Initially, the law of the case doctrine precludes our consideration of this alleged basis for relief: “ ‘It is also the rule that questions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the cause.’ ” State v. Worl, 129 Wn.2d 416, 425 , 918 P.2d 905 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 4 No. 87078-5-I/5 Folsom v. Spok

2017The law of the case doctrine states that "'questions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the cause."' State v. Worl, 129 Wn.2d 416, 425 , 918 P.2d 905 (1996)(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 256, 263 , 759 P.2d 1196 (1988)).

2025For several reasons, Roberts does not establish an entitlement to appellate relief on this claim. 1 Initially, the law of the case doctrine precludes our consideration of this alleged basis for relief: “ ‘It is also the rule that questions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the cause.’ ” State v. Worl, 129 Wn.2d 416, 425 , 918 P.2d 905 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 4 No. 87078-5-I/5 Folsom v. Spok

2017The law of the case doctrine states that "'questions determined on appeal, or which might have been determined had they been presented, will not again be considered on a subsequent appeal if there is no substantial change in the evidence at a second determination of the cause."' State v. Worl, 129 Wn.2d 416, 425 , 918 P.2d 905 (1996)(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 256, 263 , 759 P.2d 1196 (1988)).

2025The law of the case doctrine emphasizes “ ‘the binding effect of determinations’ ” and “serves to ‘promote[] the finality and efficiency of the judicial process by protecting against the agitation of settled issues.’ ” State v. Harrison, 148 Wn.2d 550, 562 , 61 P.3d 1104 (2003) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91, 113 , 829 P.2d 746 (1992) and Christianson v. Colt Indus.

2019The superior court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that Sinsheimer was not obligated to pay postsecondary expenses during the period Jared failed to provide online account access. 3 The law of the case doctrine is applied in order -to avoid indefinite relitigation of the same issue, to obtain consistent results in the same litigation, to afford one opportunity for argument and decision of the matter at issue, and to assure the obedience of lower courts to the decisions of appellate courts." State v. Harrison, 148 Wn.2d 550, 562 , 61 P.3d 1104 (2003) (quoting 5 Am.JuR.2d Appellate Revi

2016“This rule does not apply if the record or evidence conclusively shows that the party in whose favor the verdict is rendered is not entitled to recover.” Id. 3 The Millies argue that the law of the case doctrine should not apply because the record does not support a verdict awarding no damages to the Millies.

2014In such case, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is to be determined by the application of the instructions . . . .[38] Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.39 "Retrial 35id at 102. 36 id 37 id 38 id at 103 (quoting Tonkovich v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 31 Wn.2d 220, 225 , 195 P.2d 638 (1948)). 39 State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980). 10 No. 69614-9-1/11 following

2025The law of the case doctrine dictates that “[a]n appellate court’s mandate is binding on the lower court and must be strictly followed.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Owens, 177 Wn.

2024App. 181, 189-90 , 311 P.3d 594 (2013) (“The law of the case doctrine binds the parties, the trial court, and subsequent appellate courts to the holdings of an appellate court in a prior appeal until such holdings are authoritatively overruled.”).

2025Generally, under the law of the case doctrine, “once there is an appellate court ruling, its holding must be followed in all of the subsequent stages of the same litigation.” State v. Schwab, 163 Wn.2d 664, 672 , 185 P.3d 1151 (2008).

2025Power Supply Sys., 111 Wn.2d 424, 429 , 759 P.2d 427 (1988). 19 No. 39538-3-III Eggleston v Asotin County Law of the case “The law of the case doctrine provides that once there is an appellate court ruling, its holding must be followed in all the subsequent stages of the same litigation.” State v. Schwab, 163 Wn.2d 664, 672 , 185 P.3d 1151 (2008).

2025As no party objected to the above instructions, they serve as the “‘law of the case’” and “‘are treated as the properly applicable law for purposes of appeal.’” State v. Johnson, 188 Wn.2d 742 , 755, 399 P.3d 507 (2017) (quoting Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 41 , 123 P.3d 844 (2005)); State v. France, 180 Wn.2d 809, 816 , 329 P.3d 864 (2014) (“the law of the case doctrine applies to all unchallenged instructions, not just the to-convict instruction.”); State v. Calvin, 176 Wn.

2025As no party objected to the above instructions, they serve as the “‘law of the case’” and “‘are treated as the properly applicable law for purposes of appeal.’” State v. Johnson, 188 Wn.2d 742 , 755, 399 P.3d 507 (2017) (quoting Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 41 , 123 P.3d 844 (2005)); State v. France, 180 Wn.2d 809, 816 , 329 P.3d 864 (2014) (“the law of the case doctrine applies to all unchallenged instructions, not just the to-convict instruction.”); State v. Calvin, 176 Wn.

2025As no party objected to the above instructions, they serve as the “‘law of the case’” and “‘are treated as the properly applicable law for purposes of appeal.’” State v. Johnson, 188 Wn.2d 742 , 755, 399 P.3d 507 (2017) (quoting Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 41 , 123 P.3d 844 (2005)); State v. France, 180 Wn.2d 809, 816 , 329 P.3d 864 (2014) (“the law of the case doctrine applies to all unchallenged instructions, not just the to-convict instruction.”); State v. Calvin, 176 Wn.

2015App. 1, 21 , 316 P.3d 496 (2013) ("Although the State argues that the law of the case doctrine applies only when an element is added to a to-convict instruction, the doctrine is not limited to that application.