Is the doctrine of the principle or rule necessary to the disposition of the case binding in all subsequent proceedings?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Friends of Enchanted Meadow), 17 Cal.App.4th 642, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 468 (Cal. App. 1993):
Law of the case clearly is inapplicable. That doctrine states that where a Court of Appeal states a principle or rule necessary to the disposition of the case, it becomes binding throughout all subsequent proceedings in that case. (Searle v. Allstate Life Ins. Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 425,
Page 472
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
In a post-appeal collateral proceeding, can an attorney error be considered a cause for failure to raise a claim in a subsequent collateral proceeding? (California, United States of America)
Does the doctrine of the lesser included offense doctrine apply to a defendant who has pleaded guilty to a charge of a related but not necessarily included crime? (California, United States of America)
Does the invited error doctrine apply to the doctrine of imperfect self-defense? (California, United States of America)
Is a habeas corpus proceeding a continuation of a criminal proceeding? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a conservatorship proceeding under the Mental Health Act and a criminal proceeding? (California, United States of America)
Is a habeas corpus proceeding a continuation of a criminal proceeding? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between possession of drug proceeds and conspiracy to possess drug proceeds? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff can proceed with a subsequent action? (California, United States of America)
Does a claim of ineffective assistance in a habeas corpus proceeding need to be considered in a separate proceeding rather than on appeal? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the language of Ford v Chambers v. Chambers in the context of the doctrine of 'proceeding beyond a reasonable doubt'? (California, United States of America)
