law of the case becomes doctrine in California

2006The unjust decision exception does not apply when there is a mere disagreement with the prior appellate determination.” (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786-787 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 543 , 897 P.2d 481 ] (Stanley).) A mistaken ruling is not enough to avoid the doctrine: “Indeed, it is only when the former rule is deemed erroneous that the doctrine of the law of the case becomes at all important.” (Tally v. Ganahl (1907) 151 Cal. 418, 421 [ 90 P. 1049 ]; quoted with approval in Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 890 , 100 P.3d 433 ].) But for purposes of a

2006The unjust decision exception does not apply when there is a mere disagreement with the prior appellate determination.” (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786-787 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 543 , 897 P.2d 481 ] (Stanley).) A mistaken ruling is not enough to avoid the doctrine: “Indeed, it is only when the former rule is deemed erroneous that the doctrine of the law of the case becomes at all important.” (Tally v. Ganahl (1907) 151 Cal. 418, 421 [ 90 P. 1049 ]; quoted with approval in Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 890 , 100 P.3d 433 ].) But for purposes of a

2006The unjust decision exception does not apply when there is a mere disagreement with the prior appellate determination.” (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786-787 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 543 , 897 P.2d 481 ] (Stanley).) A mistaken ruling is not enough to avoid the doctrine: “Indeed, it is only when the former rule is deemed erroneous that the doctrine of the law of the case becomes at all important.” (Tally v. Ganahl (1907) 151 Cal. 418, 421 [ 90 P. 1049 ]; quoted with approval in Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 890 , 100 P.3d 433 ].) But for purposes of a

2006The unjust decision exception does not apply when there is a mere disagreement with the prior appellate determination.” (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786-787 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 543 , 897 P.2d 481 ] (Stanley).) A mistaken ruling is not enough to avoid the doctrine: “Indeed, it is only when the former rule is deemed erroneous that the doctrine of the law of the case becomes at all important.” (Tally v. Ganahl (1907) 151 Cal. 418, 421 [ 90 P. 1049 ]; quoted with approval in Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 890 , 100 P.3d 433 ].) But for purposes of a

2018Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 49 , 57, 192 Cal.Rptr. 857 , 665 P.2d 947 .) In Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482 , 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 890 , 100 P.3d 433 ( Morohoshi ), the Supreme Court outlined the "unjust decision" exception to the law-of-the case doctrine as follows: "The law of the case doctrine applies to [the Supreme Court] even though the previous appeal was before the Court of Appeal, and it applies even though this court may conclude the previous Court of Appeal opinion was erroneous. [Citation.] 'Indeed, it is only when the former rule is deemed erroneous that the doctrine of the law

2018Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 49 , 57, 192 Cal.Rptr. 857 , 665 P.2d 947 .) In Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482 , 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 890 , 100 P.3d 433 ( Morohoshi ), the Supreme Court outlined the "unjust decision" exception to the law-of-the case doctrine as follows: "The law of the case doctrine applies to [the Supreme Court] even though the previous appeal was before the Court of Appeal, and it applies even though this court may conclude the previous Court of Appeal opinion was erroneous. [Citation.] 'Indeed, it is only when the former rule is deemed erroneous that the doctrine of the law

2004(Clemente v. State of California (1985) 40 Cal.3d 202, 212 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 445 , 707 P.2d 818 ].) Accordingly, we have declined to adhere to it where its application would result in an unjust decision, e.g., where there has been a manifest misapplication of existing principles resulting in substantial *492 injustice, or where the controlling rules of law have been altered or clarified by a decision intervening between the first and second appellate determinations.

2004(Clemente v. State of California (1985) 40 Cal.3d 202, 212 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 445 , 707 P.2d 818 ].) Accordingly, we have declined to adhere to it where its application would result in an unjust decision, e.g., where there has been a manifest misapplication of existing principles resulting in substantial *492 injustice, or where the controlling rules of law have been altered or clarified by a decision intervening between the first and second appellate determinations.

1943Indeed, it is when the former rule is deemed erroneous that the doctrine of the law of the case becomes most important.” (2 Cal. Jur. 956, sec. 561 and authorities there cited.) As was so aptly stated in the case of Sontag Chain Stores Co. v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.2d 92, 94 [ 113 P.2d 689 ]: “It is well settled that a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be impeached collaterally for mere errors or irregularities committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction or in the course of the proceedings, even though the error is one of law and appears on the face of

1943Indeed, it is when the former rule is deemed erroneous that the doctrine of the law of the case becomes most important.” (2 Cal. Jur. 956, sec. 561 and authorities there cited.) As was so aptly stated in the case of Sontag Chain Stores Co. v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.2d 92, 94 [ 113 P.2d 689 ]: “It is well settled that a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be impeached collaterally for mere errors or irregularities committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction or in the course of the proceedings, even though the error is one of law and appears on the face of