LAW OF THE CASE. Propositions of law once decided by an appellate court are not open to reconsideration in that court upon a subsequent appeal or writ of error; Brown v. Zinc Co., 179 Fed. 309, 102 C. C. A. 497 (C. C. A. 8th Circ.); Illinois v. R. Co., 184,U. S. 77, 22 Sup. Ct. 300, 46 L. Ed. 440; but this is only where the facts are the same as before ; Barney v. R. Co., 117 U. S. 228, 6 Sup. Ct. 654, 29 L. Ed. 858.
A ruling of an appellate court may be modified or overruled in another case, but not in a second appeal in the same case. It becomes the law of the case and is a "final adjudication," from the consequences of which the court cannot depart or the par ties relieve themselves ; Dye v. Crary, 13 N. Mex. 439, 85 Pac. 1038, 9 L. R. A. (N, S.) 1136.
The determination of a legal question made upon reversing an order granting a preliminary injunction, becomes the law of the case ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. City of Toledo, 121 Fed. 734, 58 C. C. A. 16 (C. C. A. 6th Circ.).
Where an erroneous ruling has been af firmed on appeal, the probate court cannot in a subsequent accounting on the same fund, correct the error ; the ruling of the appellate court becomes the "law of the case" ; In re Lafferty's Estate, 230 Pa. 496, 79 Atl. 711; but a probate court may, where there has been no appeal, change its ruling when adjudicating upon a different fund in the same estate ; Kellerman's Estate, 21 Pa. Dist. R. 521.
A change by the supreme court of its rul ing on a question of law and fact will not sustain a bill of review in another case de tided before the change was made ; Tilgh man v. Werk, 39 Fed. 680.
Where there was a reversal on an appeal and a new trial, the trial court erred in fol lowing an intervening decision of the highest court inconsistent with the ruling of the re versing court; District of Columbia v. Brew er (C. C. A. Dist. Col.) 37 Wash. L. Rep. 65.
A previous ruling by an appellate court in a case is a final adjudication, from the con sequences of which the court cannot depart nor the parties relieve themselves; Phelan v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 45; even though the court was of the opinion that the ruling was erroneous ; Dewey v. Gray, 2 Cal. 377; and even where the ruling was based upon the ruling of a statute which the court after wards held had already been repealed ; Board of Com'rs of Tipton County v. R. Co., 89
Ind. 101. The doctrine applies especially to a second appeal in the same case, in which case the law applied in the fOrmer decision is binding on the appellate court; Henning v. Eldridge, 146 Ill. 305, 33 N. E. 754; Stacy v. R. Co., 32 Vt. 552.
An actual decision of any question settles the law in respect thereto for further action in the case ; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hill, 193 U. S. 551, 24 Sup. Ct. 538, 48 L. Ed. 788. On the second appeal of a case to the circuit court of appeals, after a reversal of its for mer decision by the supreme court, the for mer decision constitutes the law of the case on all points which have not been criticised or reversed by the supreme. court; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hill, 118 Fed. 708, 55 C. C. A. 536.
The phrase, "law of the case," expresses only the practice of courts generally to re fuse to re-open what has been decided, and not a limit to their power ; Remington v. R. Co., 198 U. S. 95, 99, 100, 25 Sup. Ct. 577, 49 L. Ed. 959. There is nothing in the con stitution of the United States to require it; or to prevent a state from allowing past ac tion to be modified while a case remains in court; San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65, 10 Sup. Ct. 241, 33 L. Ed. 570 ; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Ellis, 144 U. S. 458, 12 Sup. Ct. 724, 36 L. Ed. 504. The doctrine appears to have been somewhat modified in Messinger v. An derson, 225 U. S. 436, 32 Sup. Ct. 739, 56 L. Ed. 1152, where it was said that the law of the case, as applied to the effect of previous orders on the later action of the court in the same case, merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to open what has been decided. The court held that, where a circuit court of appeals has before it in the second trial of the same case a will previ ously construed by it, and meanwhile the highest court of the state in which the real estate affected is situated has construed the will differently, the former court is not bouna to adhere to its decision ; Messinger v. An derson, 225 U. S. 436, 32 Sup. Ct. 739, 56 L. Ed. 1152.
As to the distinctions between "law of the case," stare deeisis and res judieete, see 22 Harv. L. Rev. 438. As to the conclusiveness of prior decisions on subsequent appeals, see an exhaustive note in 34 L. R. A. 321.
See MANDATE.