Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 723421.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/723421.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,769 chars

overruled.'" Bunn v. Bates. 36 Wn.2d 100, 103, 216 P.2d 741 (1950) (quoting

Baxter v.Ford Motor Co.. 179 Wash. 123, 127, 35 P.2d 1090 (1934)). This

principle is reflected in RAP 12.2, relating to the procedure following issuance of

an appellate court decision, which provides, in relevant part:

Upon issuance of the mandate of the appellate court .... the
action taken or decision made by the appellate court is effective
and binding on the parties to the review and governs all subsequent
proceedings in the action in any court, . . . except as provided in
rule 2.5(c)(2). After the mandate has issued, the trial court may,
however, hear and decide postjudgment motions otherwise
authorized by statute or court rule so long as those motions do not
challenge issues already decided by the appellate court.

(Emphasis added.)

RAP 12.2 is consistent with the general principle that "'the decision of the

appellate court establishes the law ofthe case and it must be followed by the trial
court on remand.'" United States v. Rivera-Martinez. 931 F.2d 148, 150 (1st Cir.

1991) (quoting 1B J. Moore, J. Lucas, &T. Currier, Moore's Federal Practice

H0.404[1] (2d ed. 1991)): accord Nattah v. Bush. 770 F. Supp. 2d 193, 201

(D.D.C. 2011) ("Under the law ofthe case doctrine, [the trial court] may not revisit
any issues that it has previously resolved, nor may it re-evaluate the merits of

any disputes settled by the [appellate court] on appeal.").
Herein, Lodis sought to present evidence attacking a priorjury's verdict

finding that he breached his fiduciary duty. Relitigating the jury's verdict was the
only purpose for which the evidence was proffered. Importantly, Lodis had
already challenged that verdict in his first appeal to this court. At that time, we