principle rule in California

2024When an appellate court “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal.” (Tally v. Ganahl (1907) 151 Cal. 418, 421 ; accord People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 417 .) Like res judicata, the doctrine of the law of the case promotes finality of litigation and judicial economy by preventing a party from relitigating questions previously decided by a reviewing court.

2016(Tally v. Ganahl (1907) 151 Cal. 418, 421 [“[W]here, upon an appeal, the supreme court, in deciding the appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal. . . .”]; see also Steelduct Co. v. Henger-Seltzer Co. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 634, 643-644 [ruling of appellate court that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a defense was the law of the case on retrial].) I would affirm the judgment.

2024The law of the case doctrine provides that when an appellate court “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . , and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888 , 892– 893.) “The principle applies to criminal as well as civil matters.” (People v. Shuey (1975)

2020Analysis “Under the doctrine of the law of the case, a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court’s decision must be applied throughout all later proceedings in the same case, both in the trial court and on a later appeal.” (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 94 .) “ ‘[W]here an appellate court states a rule of law necessary to its decision, such rule “ ‘must be adhered to’ ” in any “ ‘subsequent appeal’ ” in the same case, even where the former decision appears to be “ ‘erroneous’ ” ’ (People v. Whitt (1990) 51 Cal.3d 620, 63

2025Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 425, 435 .) Pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case, “when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal …, and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.’ ” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 893 .) Moreover, as in the present case,

2024Law of the Case California’s law of the case doctrine provides that when an appellate court decides an appeal and “ ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal ....’ ” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888 , 892–893.) In King & Gardiner, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th 814 , an unpublished portion of the opinion concluded that “Sierra Club has not established the County abused its discretion when it chose not to

2026The People maintain that after Reed I, the court in People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 (Contreras) “determined that a term of 50 years to life is the functional equivalent of an LWOP,” and that that “decision changed the legal landscape, rendering the law of the case doctrine inapplicable.” Thus, the 5 People agree with defendant that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to determine whether defendant qualifies for resentencing under section 1170.4 We accept the concession. “‘The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court “states in its

2026Under that doctrine, when an appellate court “‘“states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal.”’” (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786 ; People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246 .) Where the facts are undisputed, the application of section 654 raises a question of law.

2026Under that doctrine, when an appellate court “‘“states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal.”’” (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786 ; People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246 .) Where the facts are undisputed, the application of section 654 raises a question of law.

2025(Farfan, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at 951.) The People also argue defendant’s second petition is barred by the law of the case doctrine. “‘“The doctrine of the law of the case is this: That where, upon an appeal, the [reviewing] court, in deciding the appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal, and . . . in any subsequent suit for the same cause of action . . . .”’ The principle applies to criminal

2025Holdsworth asserts that the failure to plead the 1978 assault with a deadly weapon conviction as a section 667.7 predicate denied him fair notice that the prosecution intended to use the fact of that conviction for purposes of the life sentence, “which meant that [he] and his counsel could not properly determine [his] sentencing exposure.” As an initial matter, the Attorney General contends Holdsworth’s claim is barred by the law of the case doctrine, which provides that “a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court’s decision mus

2025(Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 453-454.) The law of the case doctrine is “related” to issue preclusion, though it “has to do with the legal principles governing a particular case in subsequent proceedings following an appeal.” (People v. Beaudreaux, supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 1240, fn. 4, emphasis in original.) It provides that “a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court’s decision must be applied throughout all later proceedings in the same case, both in the trial court and on a later appeal.” (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 C

2026The People maintain that after Reed I, the court in People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 (Contreras) “determined that a term of 50 years to life is the functional equivalent of an LWOP,” and that that “decision changed the legal landscape, rendering the law of the case doctrine inapplicable.” Thus, the 5 People agree with defendant that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to determine whether defendant qualifies for resentencing under section 1170.4 We accept the concession. “‘The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court “states in its

2025Analysis A. Additional relevant law The law of the case doctrine provides “‘when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal[s].”’” (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 374, fn. 6 .) However, the doctrine “will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust 8 decision, e.g., where . . . the controlling rules of law have

2021“The law of the case doctrine [provides] that when . . . an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . .’ ” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 892-893 ; accord Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491 .) Under this doctrine, “the case may not go over ground that has been covered before in an appellate court [opinion].” (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Sou

2017Optional I , supra , 222 Cal.App.4th 1388 , 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 705 is not the "law of the case" for purposes of this appeal Plaintiff contends on appeal, as it did below, that Optional I , supra , 222 Cal.App.4th 1388 , 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 705 is the "law of the case." Consequently, as a preliminary matter, we need to address what effect, if any, our prior decision in Optional I has on the outcome of this appeal. " 'The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court "states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rul

2007Where an appellate court states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to its decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case. ( Clemente v. State of California (1985) 40 Cal.3d 202, 211 , 219 Cal.Rptr. 445 , 707 P.2d 818 .) The law of the case must be adhered to both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal. ( Ibid. ) This is true even if the court that issued the opinion becomes convinced *565 in a subsequent consideration that the former opinion is erroneous. ( Ibid. ) But our former opinion in this case ( Scope I ) stated no principle or rule of law bearing o

2007Where an appellate court states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to its decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case. ( Clemente v. State of California (1985) 40 Cal.3d 202, 211 , 219 Cal.Rptr. 445 , 707 P.2d 818 .) The law of the case must be adhered to both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal. ( Ibid. ) This is true even if the court that issued the opinion becomes convinced *565 in a subsequent consideration that the former opinion is erroneous. ( Ibid. ) But our former opinion in this case ( Scope I ) stated no principle or rule of law bearing o

2015That doctrine is “that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule *932 becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . .’ [Citations.]” (Kowis v. Howard (41992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 892-893 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 , 838 P.2d 250 ], fn. omitted.) As stated by the Supreme Court, “The doctrine of the law of the case does not extend to points of law which might have been but were not presented and determined

2015That doctrine is “that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule *932 becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . .’ [Citations.]” (Kowis v. Howard (41992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 892-893 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 728 , 838 P.2d 250 ], fn. omitted.) As stated by the Supreme Court, “The doctrine of the law of the case does not extend to points of law which might have been but were not presented and determined

2025(See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786 [the doctrine of law of the case applies when a reviewing court deciding an appeal “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision”]; see also People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 197 [to apply law of the case doctrine, the point of law involved must have been presented and determined by the court].) Thus, the law of the case doctrine does not apply.9 However, we determine the error to be harmless for another reason: because the jury’s verdicts and findings preclude Peraza from relief.

2025The law of the case doctrine provides that, “where, upon an appeal, the [reviewing] court, in deciding the appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . .” (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786 .) However, for the doctrine to apply, the “point of law involved” must have been “necessary to the prior decision” and must have been “ ‘ “actually presented and determined by the court.” ’ ”

2024When an appellate court “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal.” (Tally v. Ganahl (1907) 151 Cal. 418, 421 ; accord People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 417 .) Like res judicata, the doctrine of the law of the case promotes finality of litigation and judicial economy by preventing a party from relitigating questions previously decided by a reviewing court.

2022“Under the doctrine of the law of the case, a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court’s decision must be applied throughout all later proceedings in the same case, both in the trial court and on a later appeal.” (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 94 ; accord, People v. Turner (2004) 34 Cal.4th 406, 417 .) “[B]ut we do not apply [the doctrine] when an intervening decision has altered or clarified the controlling rules of law, or when the rule stated in the prior decision was a ‘“manifest misapplication”’ of the law resultin

2025(Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 453-454.) The law of the case doctrine is “related” to issue preclusion, though it “has to do with the legal principles governing a particular case in subsequent proceedings following an appeal.” (People v. Beaudreaux, supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 1240, fn. 4, emphasis in original.) It provides that “a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court’s decision must be applied throughout all later proceedings in the same case, both in the trial court and on a later appeal.” (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 C

2025Analysis A. Additional relevant law The law of the case doctrine provides “‘when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal[s].”’” (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 374, fn. 6 .) However, the doctrine “will not be adhered to where its application will result in an unjust 8 decision, e.g., where . . . the controlling rules of law have

1995The issue before us is whether, as the Attorney General contends, further review of the search issues is foreclosed by the doctrine of “law of the case.” As reiterated in People v. Shuey (1975) 13 Cal.3d 835, 841 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 83 , 533 P.2d 211 ] (Shuey): “ ‘The doctrine of the law of the case is this: That where, upon an appeal, the [reviewing] court, in deciding the appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon

1995The issue before us is whether, as the Attorney General contends, further review of the search issues is foreclosed by the doctrine of “law of the case.” As reiterated in People v. Shuey (1975) 13 Cal.3d 835, 841 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 83 , 533 P.2d 211 ] (Shuey): “ ‘The doctrine of the law of the case is this: That where, upon an appeal, the [reviewing] court, in deciding the appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon

2026The People maintain that after Reed I, the court in People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 (Contreras) “determined that a term of 50 years to life is the functional equivalent of an LWOP,” and that that “decision changed the legal landscape, rendering the law of the case doctrine inapplicable.” Thus, the 5 People agree with defendant that the matter must be remanded to the trial court to determine whether defendant qualifies for resentencing under section 1170.4 We accept the concession. “‘The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court “states in its

2025Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 425, 435 .) Pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case, “when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal …, and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.’ ” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 893 .) Moreover, as in the present case,

2025Under the doctrine of the law of the case, “‘“[W]here, upon an appeal, the [reviewing] court, in deciding the appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower 19 court and upon subsequent appeal and . . . in any subsequent suit for the same cause of action, and this [is true] although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.”’” (People v. Murtis

2020Law of the Case Doctrine Our Supreme Court has defined the doctrine of law of the case as follows: “‘“That where, upon an appeal, the [reviewing] court, in deciding the appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal and . . . in any subsequent suit for the same cause of action . . . .”’” (People v. Murtishaw (2011) 51 Cal.4th 574, 589 .) But “law of the case ‘does not extend to points of law which m

2024The law of the case doctrine provides that when an appellate court “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . , and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888 , 892– 893.) “The principle applies to criminal as well as civil matters.” (People v. Shuey (1975)

2021Footnote 8 of This Court’s Original Opinion Did Not Establish Law of the Case The law of the case doctrine provides that “ ‘when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court “states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal.” ’ [Citation.]” (Quackenbush v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 867, 874 .) By its own terms, the doctrine does not apply to dicta. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2020) Appeal, § 4

2021“The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . , and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.’ [Citations.]” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 892-893 , fn. omitted (Kowis); see Griset v. Fair Political P

2020Analysis “Under the doctrine of the law of the case, a principle or rule that a reviewing court states in an opinion and that is necessary to the reviewing court’s decision must be applied throughout all later proceedings in the same case, both in the trial court and on a later appeal.” (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 94 .) “ ‘[W]here an appellate court states a rule of law necessary to its decision, such rule “ ‘must be adhered to’ ” in any “ ‘subsequent appeal’ ” in the same case, even where the former decision appears to be “ ‘erroneous’ ” ’ (People v. Whitt (1990) 51 Cal.3d 620, 63

1936Another reason why the failure of the plaintiff to make the turn around the center of the intersection of the highway and the private road, if the law required him to so turn and if he failed so to do, should not be held to be contributory negligence as a matter of law which would prevent his recovery, is found in the following rule announced in Skaggs v. Wiley, 108 Cal. App. 429 [ 292 Pac. 132 ] : “Where the view is thus obstructed, a failure to observe the statutory requirement as to speed will if the same proximately causes or contributes to the injury complained of, constitute negligence a

1936Another reason why the failure of the plaintiff to make the turn around the center of the intersection of the highway and the private road, if the law required him to so turn and if he failed so to do, should not be held to be contributory negligence as a matter of law which would prevent his recovery, is found in the following rule announced in Skaggs v. Wiley, 108 Cal. App. 429 [ 292 Pac. 132 ] : “Where the view is thus obstructed, a failure to observe the statutory requirement as to speed will if the same proximately causes or contributes to the injury complained of, constitute negligence a

2025(People v. Shuey (1975) 13 Cal.3d 835, 841 .) Mother contends “ ‘exceptional circumstances’ ” allow this court to “ ‘decide the case without regard to what has gone before.’ ” (Searle, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 434 .) Mother’s reply brief states that the present appeal is sought because mother “believes the prior rulings of the trial court and the prior ruling of this [c]ourt were incorrect, and that her parental rights should not be terminated.” For the “ ‘unjust decision’ ” exception to apply, however, “there must at least be demonstrated a manifest misapplication of existing principles resulti

2025Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 425, 435 .) Pursuant to the doctrine of law of the case, “when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal …, and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision is erroneous in that particular.’ ” (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 893 .) Moreover, as in the present case,