law of the case doctrine in Washington

2026RAP 2.5(c)(2) states that “[t]he appellate court may . . . review the propriety of an earlier decision of the appellate court in the same case and, where justice would best be served, decide the case on the basis of the appellate court’s opinion of the law at the time -4- No. 87913-8-I of the later review.” This rule codifies “two historically recognized exceptions to the law of the case doctrine.” Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 42 , 123 P.3d 844 (2005).

2026RAP 2.5(c)(2) states that “[t]he appellate court may . . . review the propriety of an earlier decision of the appellate court in the same case and, where justice would best be served, decide the case on the basis of the appellate court’s opinion of the law at the time -4- No. 87913-8-I of the later review.” This rule codifies “two historically recognized exceptions to the law of the case doctrine.” Roberson v. Perez, 156 Wn.2d 33, 42 , 123 P.3d 844 (2005).

2003But cf. State v. Hickman, 135 Wash.2d 97 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998) (applying the law of the case doctrine); State v. Ong, 88 Wash.App. 572 , 945 P.2d 749 (1997) (same). [5] Dieadera Mannen, Megan Hoover, Melissa Bowden, and Corina Graden. [6] Cf. Mannen (RP at 17, 34-36), Hoover (RP at 45), Bowden (RP at 68), Graden (RP at 146). [7] We note that what the court said about DeVries' energy pills applies just as easily to many nonprescription substances as well as doctor-prescribed medications, which high school students presumably understand may produce adverse reactions.

2003But cf. State v. Hickman, 135 Wash.2d 97 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998) (applying the law of the case doctrine); State v. Ong, 88 Wash.App. 572 , 945 P.2d 749 (1997) (same). [5] Dieadera Mannen, Megan Hoover, Melissa Bowden, and Corina Graden. [6] Cf. Mannen (RP at 17, 34-36), Hoover (RP at 45), Bowden (RP at 68), Graden (RP at 146). [7] We note that what the court said about DeVries' energy pills applies just as easily to many nonprescription substances as well as doctor-prescribed medications, which high school students presumably understand may produce adverse reactions.

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 Folsom v. Spokane County, 111

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 Folsom v. Spokane County, 111

2025This law of the case “‘forbids, among other things, a lower court from relitigating issues that were decided by a higher court, whether explicitly or by reasonable implication, at an earlier stage of the same case.’” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 10 Mun. of San Juan v. Rullan, 318 F.3d 26, 29 (1st Cir. 2003)).

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.

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.

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))).

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. App. 30, 56 , 366 P.3d 1246 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 66 So. 3d 438, 448 (La. 2011)).

2024LAW 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. App. 30, 56 , 366 P.3d 1246 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 66 So. 3d 438, 448 (La. 2011)).

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 Folsom v. Spokane County, 111

2023Greene v. Rothschild, 68 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 414 P.2d 1013 (1965); Pierce County v. Desart, 9 Wn. App. 760, 761, n.1 , 515 P.2d 550 (1973). 30 No. 38850-6-III, Medical Lake Cemetery Ass’n v. Spokane County Even if the Pend Oreille County Superior Court should have refrained from entertaining the question of the compatibility with the military airport overlay zone or the issue of whether the gun club’s proposed use contemplated a recreational vehicle park, the law of the case doctrine does not constrain this court when this court has never issued a prior decision in the instant case.

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. App. 30, 56 , 366 P.3d 1246 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 66 So. 3d 438, 448 (La. 2011)).

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. App. 30, 58 , 366 P.3d 1246 (2015) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Rivera-Martinez, 931 F.2d 148, 150 (1st Cir. 1991)).

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 Folsom v. Spokane County, 111

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 Folsom v. Spokane County, 111

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.

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.

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.

2025Though “a remand ‘for further proceedings’ ‘signals this court’s expectation that the trial court will exercise its discretion to decide any issue necessary to resolve the case,’ the trial court cannot ignore the appellate court’s specific holdings and directions on remand.” Owens, 177 Wn. App. at 189 (quoting In re Marriage of Rockwell, 157 Wn. App. 449, 453 , 238 P.3d 1184 (2010) 3 (footnote omitted)) (emphasis added). 1 In other words, a trial court violates the law of the case doctrine if its actions on remand “thwart the direction” we have given.

2026The law of the case doctrine states that “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).

2026The law of the case doctrine states that “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).

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)).

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” instruction.’” Johnson, -4- 188 Wn.2d at 756 (quoting State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998)).

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. App. 1, 21 , 302 P.3d 509 (2013) (holding the doctrine applies to “definitional instructions”).

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. App. 1, 21 , 302 P.3d 509 (2013) (holding the doctrine applies to “definitional instructions”).

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. App. 1, 21 , 302 P.3d 509 (2013) (holding the doctrine applies to “definitional instructions”).

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.

2023While appellate courts have discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine, “[t]he same discretion is not afforded to the trial court on remand from the appellate court.” Id. at 57 .

2015In re Pooled Advocate Tr., 2012 SD 24 , 813 N.W.2d 130, 139 (some emphasis added) (most alterations in original) (some citations omitted). ¶46 Thus, the essential difference between the doctrines is that the law of the case doctrine applies to successive proceedings in the same case, whereas res judicata is applicable to successive proceedings in different cases.

2019Crawford does not contend that sexual contact during a "treatment session, consultation, interview, or examination" are alternative means of committing the crime of indecent liberties by a health care provider or that the evidence supports finding sexual contact occurred during a "treatment session." Crawford asserts that under the law of the case doctrine, the State assumed No. 77423-9-1/2 the burden of also proving sexual contact also occurred during a "consultation, interview, or examination." In State v. Tyler, 191 Wn.2d 205 , 422 P.3d 436 (2018), the Washington Supreme Court recently cons

2019Crawford does not contend that sexual contact during a "treatment session, consultation, interview, or examination" are alternative means of committing the crime of indecent liberties by a health care provider or that the evidence supports finding sexual contact occurred during a "treatment session." Crawford asserts that under the law of the case doctrine, the State assumed No. 77423-9-1/2 the burden of also proving sexual contact also occurred during a "consultation, interview, or examination." In State v. Tyler, 191 Wn.2d 205 , 422 P.3d 436 (2018), the Washington Supreme Court recently cons

2018See State v. Kilgore, 167 Wn.2d 28, 38-39 , 216 P.3d 393 (2009).

2018See State v. Kilgore, 167 Wn.2d 28, 38-39 , 216 P.3d 393 (2009).