Utah Law: Law of the Case Doctrine vs. Mandate Rule
The Utah Supreme Court recently clarified a bit of Utah law that has vexed me in a number of my cases recently: when and to what degree a district court is bound by its previous decisions in a case.
In Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Four-Four, Inc., 2009 UT 43, __ P.3d __, the Supreme Court reiterated the long-held principle that “under the law of the case doctrine, a decision made on an issue during one stage of a case is binding in successive stages of the same litigation.” (Citing IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., 2008 UT 36, ¶ 26, __ P.3d __). This rule remains effective regardless whether the judge changes or remains the same. Id. at ¶ 11. “Law of the case does not prohibit a district court judge from revisiting a previously decided issue during the course of a case, . . . [r]ather, “the doctrine allows a court to decline to revisit issues within the same case once the court has ruled on them.” Id. at ¶ 26 (emphasis added by Mid-America court).
The trial court may, sua sponte, revisit any previous rulings in a case. No motion is required and the court can refuse to reconsider its previous rulings. There are, however, three exceptions which require a court to reconsider its previous, unappealed, rulings: “‘(1) when there has been an intervening change of authority; (2) when new evidence has become available; or (3) when the court is convinced that its prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’” Id. at ¶ 14 (citing IHC Health Servs., Inc., 2008 UT at ¶ 34).
Another quasi-exception to the law of the case doctrine lies in the “mandate rule.” “[A] district court’s power to reconsider decided issues is limited when the case has been appealed and remanded.” Mid-America, 2009 UT at ¶ 13 (citing IHC Health Servs., 2008 UT 36, ¶ 27). “The mandate rule, unlike the law of the case before a remand, binds both the district court and the parties to honor the mandate of the appellate court.” Id. “Thus, the decisions of an appellate court become the law of the case and cannot be reconsidered on remand.” Id.
You are now informed. Good luck.
- You Are Not Limited to Rule 11 When Dealing With Unethical Conduct in Utah
- Proposed Federal Civil Rule Changes: Rules 26 (experts) and 56 (summary judgment)
- Utah Legislature May Materially Alter Medical Malpractice Claims
- Utah Legislature Modifies Medical Malpractice Claims Part 2
- Utah U.S. District Court Tests “E-Summons”
- You Are Not Limited to Rule 11 When Dealing With Unethical Conduct in Utah
- Proposed Federal Civil Rule Changes: Rules 26 (experts) and 56 (summary judgment)
- Utah Legislature May Materially Alter Medical Malpractice Claims
- Utah Legislature Modifies Medical Malpractice Claims Part 2
- Utah U.S. District Court Tests “E-Summons”