law of the case doctrine in Mississippi

2017Ins., 812 So.2d 953, 960-61 (Miss. 2002) (discussing the law-of-the-case doctrine).

2015Co., 812 So.2d 953, 960 (Miss.2002). “[A] mandate issued by this Court ‘is binding on the trial court on remand, unless the case comes under one of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine ..., such as ‘material changes in evidence, pleadings or findings’ .... or the need for the Court to ‘depart from its former decision’ ‘after mature consideration’ so that ‘unjust results’ will not occur....’” Id. (citations omitted).

2017Pitchford's request that we revisit this issue also squarely implicates the law of the case doctrine. "[A]s a general rule, when an appellate court passes upon a question and remands the cause for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the 'law of the case' upon a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and issues which were determined in the previous appeal are involved in the second appeal." Cont'l Turpentine & Rosin Co. v. Gulf Naval Stores Co. , 244 Miss. 465 , 480, 142 So.2d 200 , 207 (1962).

2017Pitchford's request that we revisit this issue also squarely implicates the law of the case doctrine. "[A]s a general rule, when an appellate court passes upon a question and remands the cause for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the 'law of the case' upon a subsequent appeal, provided the same facts and issues which were determined in the previous appeal are involved in the second appeal." Cont'l Turpentine & Rosin Co. v. Gulf Naval Stores Co. , 244 Miss. 465 , 480, 142 So.2d 200 , 207 (1962).

2014In Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358 , 76 So. 267 (1917), the Court stated that We do not think, however, that [the law of the case doctrine] is so fixed and binding upon the court that it may not depart from its former decision on a subsequent appeal if the former decision in its judgment after mature consideration is erroneous and wrongful and would lead to unjust results.

2012In Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358 , 76 So. 267 (1917), the Court stated that We do not think, however, that [the law of the case doctrine] is so fixed and binding upon the court that it may not depart from its former decision on a subsequent appeal if the former decision in its judgment after mature consideration is erroneous and wrongful and would lead to unjust results.

2020See Lee, 167 So. 3d at 177 (¶18) (“If a second appeal involves the same issues and the same facts as a prior appeal, the law established in the prior appeal ordinarily applies under the law of the case doctrine.”); Holcomb v. McClure, 217 Miss. 617, 621 , 64 So. 2d 689, 691 (1953) (“[T]he rule in this State is that the law of the case as established on a first appeal will normally and ordinarily control on later trials and appeals of the same case involving the same issues and facts.”).

2020See Lee, 167 So. 3d at 177 (¶18) (“If a second appeal involves the same issues and the same facts as a prior appeal, the law established in the prior appeal ordinarily applies under the law of the case doctrine.”); Holcomb v. McClure, 217 Miss. 617, 621 , 64 So. 2d 689, 691 (1953) (“[T]he rule in this State is that the law of the case as established on a first appeal will normally and ordinarily control on later trials and appeals of the same case involving the same issues and facts.”).

2014This Court has recognized another exception to the law of the case doctrine when the previous decision was manifestly erroneous and to uphold it would cause “a grave injustice.” J.K., 30 So.3d at 296 .

2012This Court has recognized another exception to the law of the case doctrine when the previous decision was manifestly erroneous and to uphold it would 10 cause “a grave injustice.” J.K., 30 So. 3d at 296 .

2018And the law-of-the-case doctrine "has no applicability where the order or judgment is not of a final character." Id. (citing Mauck , 741 So.2d at 268 ). ¶ 47.

2018And the law-of-the-case doctrine "has no applicability where the order or judgment is not of a final character." Id. (citing Mauck , 741 So.2d at 268 ). ¶ 47.

2004In Jones v. State, 517 So.2d 1295, 1297 (Miss.1987), vacated on other grounds, 487 U.S. 1230 , 108 S.Ct. 2891 , 101 L.Ed.2d 925 (1988), the defendant argued on his second appeal that his confession was not freely and voluntarily given.

2004In Jones v. State, 517 So.2d 1295, 1297 (Miss.1987), vacated on other grounds, 487 U.S. 1230 , 108 S.Ct. 2891 , 101 L.Ed.2d 925 (1988), the defendant argued on his second appeal that his confession was not freely and voluntarily given.

2004According to the mandate rule, a specific application of this doctrine, a mandate issued by this Court "`is binding on the trial court on remand, unless the case comes under one of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine.'" Moeller, 812 So.2d at 960 (quoting Simpson, 564 So.2d at 1377 ).

2002This doctrine dictates that a mandate issued by this Court "is binding on the trial court on remand, unless the case comes under one of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine." Simpson, 564 So.2d at 1377 .

2020See Lee, 167 So. 3d at 177 (¶18) (“If a second appeal involves the same issues and the same facts as a prior appeal, the law established in the prior appeal ordinarily applies under the law of the case doctrine.”); Holcomb v. McClure, 217 Miss. 617, 621 , 64 So. 2d 689, 691 (1953) (“[T]he rule in this State is that the law of the case as established on a first appeal will normally and ordinarily control on later trials and appeals of the same case involving the same issues and facts.”).

2019See Lee v. Thompson, 167 So. 3d 170, 177 (¶18) (Miss. 2014) (“If a second appeal involves the same issues and the same facts as a prior appeal, the law established in the prior appeal ordinarily applies under the law of the case doctrine.”); Holcomb v. McClure, 217 Miss. 617, 621 , 64 So. 2d 689, 691 (1953) (“[T]he rule in this State is that the law of the case as established on a first appeal will normally and ordinarily control on later trials and appeals of the same case involving the same issues and facts.”); see generally, 5 Am.

2012See TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle, 716 So.2d 991, 1019 (¶ 97) (Miss.1997) (articulating the law-of-the-case doctrine). .

2009TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle, 716 So.2d 991, 1019 (¶ 97) (Miss.1997).

2021Similarly, in this case, Alexander waived his ability to challenge the chancellor’s ruling that 6 In Holder, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explained that “[t]he waiver doctrine, like the law-of-the-case doctrine, serves judicial economy by forcing parties to raise issues whose resolution might spare the court and parties later rounds of remands and appeals.” Holder, 634 F.3d at 834 (citation and internal quotation mark omitted).

2021But the waiver doctrine “differs from the law-of-the-case doctrine in that it arises as a consequence of a party’s inaction, not as a consequence of a decision on our part.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted).

2019And the law-of-the-case doctrine has no applicability where the order or judgment is not of a final character.” Elliott v. AmeriGas Propane L.P., 249 So. 3d 389, 399-400 (¶46) (Miss. 2018).

2018See Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls , 614 F.3d 161 , 171 (5th Cir. 2010).

2018See Holland v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. , 3 So.3d 94 , 104 (Miss. 2008).

2012Co., Inc. v. City of Gulfport, 63 So.3d 514, 539 (Miss.2011) (quoting Moeller v. Am.

2011See Jones, 53 So.3d at 837 (¶ 15) (“Under the law of the case doctrine and general principles of comity, a successor judge has the same discretion to reconsider an order as would the first judge, but should not overrule the earlier judge’s order or judgment merely because the later judge might have decided matters differently.”).

2011“Under the law of the case doctrine and general principles of comity, a successor judge has the same discretion to reconsider an order as would the first judge, but should not overrule the earlier judge’s order or judgment merely because the later judge might have decided matters differently.” In re Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d 406, 411 (5th Cir.2009) (citations omitted).

2008NOTES [1] In Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994), the Mississippi Supreme Court enunciated eight factors to be considered by trial courts in equitably dividing the marital estate. [2] Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993). [3] In Public Employees' Retirement System v. Freeman, 868 So.2d 327, 330 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2004) (quoting Moeller v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., 812 So.2d 953, 960 (¶ 22) (Miss.2002)), the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed the law of the case doctrine as follows: The doctrine of the law of the case is similar to that of form

2008NOTES [1] In Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994), the Mississippi Supreme Court enunciated eight factors to be considered by trial courts in equitably dividing the marital estate. [2] Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993). [3] In Public Employees' Retirement System v. Freeman, 868 So.2d 327, 330 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2004) (quoting Moeller v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., 812 So.2d 953, 960 (¶ 22) (Miss.2002)), the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed the law of the case doctrine as follows: The doctrine of the law of the case is similar to that of form

2008NOTES [1] In Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994), the Mississippi Supreme Court enunciated eight factors to be considered by trial courts in equitably dividing the marital estate. [2] Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993). [3] In Public Employees' Retirement System v. Freeman, 868 So.2d 327, 330 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2004) (quoting Moeller v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., 812 So.2d 953, 960 (¶ 22) (Miss.2002)), the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed the law of the case doctrine as follows: The doctrine of the law of the case is similar to that of form

2008NOTES [1] In Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994), the Mississippi Supreme Court enunciated eight factors to be considered by trial courts in equitably dividing the marital estate. [2] Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993). [3] In Public Employees' Retirement System v. Freeman, 868 So.2d 327, 330 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2004) (quoting Moeller v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., 812 So.2d 953, 960 (¶ 22) (Miss.2002)), the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed the law of the case doctrine as follows: The doctrine of the law of the case is similar to that of form