Swanson v. Swanson6/30/2000
and Suitts v. First Security Bank, 110 Idaho 15, 21-22, 713 P.2d 1374, 1380-81 (1985). George urges this Court to reverse, arguing that the "law of the case" rule applies only in cases which have been remanded to the district court after appeal to the state's court of last resort.
1. The "law of the case" doctrine.
The doctrine of "law of the case" is well established in Idaho and provides that "upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding a case presented states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the trial court and upon subsequent appeal . . . ." Suitts v. First Sec. Bank of Idaho, 110 Idaho 15, 21, 713 P.2d 1374, 1380 (1985) (quoting Fiscus v. Beartooth Elec. Coop., Inc., 591 P.2d 196, 197 (Mont. 1979)).
George argues that the law of the case doctrine only precludes reopening issues in cases after they have ascended to the state's court of last resort and are subsequently remanded. While the Suitts case explicitly discusses the rule in the context of appeals to this Court, earlier cases refer to the application of the doctrine in terms of appellate courts generally. See, e.g., Creem v. Northwestern Mut. Fire Ass'n of Seattle, Wash., 58 Idaho 349, 352, 74 P.2d 702, 703 (1937) (stating that where the case is remanded to the trial court, the case "must be tried in the light of and in consonance with the rules of law as announced by the appellate court in that particular case. This is what we call 'the law of the case.'"); Brinton v. Johnson, 41 Idaho 583, 592, 240 P. 859, 861 (1925) (stating that " decision by the appellate court upon a point distinctly made and essential to its determination upon a previous appeal is in all subsequent proceedings in the same case a final adjudication.").
Additionally, Idaho courts have applied the "law of the case" doctrine to preclude relitigation of issues in cases that did not reach the Supreme Court during the first appeal. In Insurance Associates Corp. v. Hansen, 116 Idaho 948, 782 P.2d 1230 (1989), for example, this Court held that the trial court's findings in the original decision were "the law of the case" on remand, where the Court of Appeals had concluded, in connection with remand, that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous. See id. at 950-51, 782 P.2d at 1232-33. "Accordingly," this Court concluded, "the facts having been decided, they are final, they have become the law of the case, and the Court of Appeals' pronouncement must be adhered to, both in the trial court and on subsequent appeal." Id. (citing Airstream, Inc. v. CIT Financial Services, Inc., 115 Idaho 569, 768 P.2d 1302 (1988); Matter of Barker, 110 Idaho 871, 719 P.2d 1131 (1986); Suitts, 110 Idaho 15, 713 P.2d 1374 (1985)).
Similarly, the Court of Appeals has held that where the district court acts in an appellate capacity, and appeal to the Supreme Court is subsequently dismissed by stipulation, the rulings of the district court "became final rulings in the case, not subject to attack in this appeal, and which stated the law of the case that the magistrate--and even this appellate court--must follow in this appeal." Wulff v. Peralta, 123 Idaho 567, 568, 850 P.2d 216, 217 (Ct. App. 1993).
Applying the "law of the case" doctrine to cases which do not reach the Supreme Court during the first appeal would help ensure consistent results in the appellate process on all levels. As the Court of Appeals has observed:
Furthermore, " he doctrine of the law of the case provides that where an appellate court states a principle of law in deciding a case, that rule
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|