Id. at 264. Appellees also rely on two cases in which the Attorney General brought common law claims that were rejected due to the Legislature's "intent to occupy the field," Van de Kamp v. Gumbiner, 221 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1284, 270 Cal.Rptr. 907 (1990), and People v. New Penn Mines, 212 Cal.App.2d 667, 28 Cal.Rptr. 337 (1963), and on Quackenbush v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App.4th 867, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 282 (2000), which interpreted section 1037's use of the term "exclusively." Quackenbush held that the Commissioner possesses exclusive authority "to prosecute and defend any and all suits and other legal proceedings for the purpose of collecting debts and claims due to a liquidated insurance company. . . . [A]s Cal-American's liquidator, the Commissioner has been given the exclusive right to pursue, collect and sue on any and all claims that Cal-American may have."
However, the "application of the rule is . . . subject to the qualifications that 'the point of law involved must have been necessary to the prior decision, that the matter must have been actually presented and determined by the court, and that application of the doctrine will not result in an unjust decision.'" (Id. at p. 842; see Quackenbush v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 867, 874 (Quackenbush) ["dicta . . . is not binding on the parties, the trial court or [intermediate appellate] court as law of the case"].)
The law of the case doctrine provides that " 'when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court "states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal." ' [Citation.]" (Quackenbush v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 867, 874.) By its own terms, the doctrine does not apply to dicta.
Id. at 264. Appellees also rely on two cases in which the Attorney General brought common law claims that were rejected due to the Legislature's "intent to occupy the field," Van de Kamp v. Gumbiner, 221 Cal.App. 3d 1260, 1284(1990), and People v. New Penn Mines, 212 Cal.App. 2d 667(1963), and on Quackenbush v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App. 4th 867 (2000), which interpreted section 1037's use of the term "exclusively." Quackenbush held that the Commissioner possesses exclusive authority "to prosecute and defend any and all suits and other legal proceedings for the purpose of collecting debts and claims due to a liquidated insurance company.
Although few cases have interpreted the meaning and scope of section 1037(f), those cases addressing the issue contain language supporting Defendants' position. In Quackenbush v. Superior Ct., 79 Cal.App.4th 867 (2000), the California Court of Appeal held that the Insurance Commissioner, as liquidator of and on behalf of an insolvent insurance company, had authority to prosecute a malpractice action against an auditor. Quackenbush, 79 Cal.App. at 870.
"'The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court "states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal."' [Citation.]" (Quackenbush v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 867, 874.) "Generally, the doctrine of law of the case does not extend to points of law which might have been but were not presented and determined in a prior appeal. [Citation.] This general rule, however, is subject to an important exception.
" ‘The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court "states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal." ’ " ( Quackenbush v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 867, 874, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 282.) The doctrine applies to a rule of law necessarily decided in an appellate decision and determines " ‘the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.’ "
The decision of an appellate court stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case. (Ryan v. Mike-Ron Corp. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 91, 96; Quackenbush v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 867, 874.) The law of the case doctrine generally precludes multiple appellate review of the same issue in a single case.
The decision of an appellate court stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case. (Ryan v. Mike-Ron Corp. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 91, 96; Quackenbush v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 867, 874.) The law of the case doctrine generally precludes multiple appellate review of the same issue in a single case.
Plaintiffs argue Sheppard was wrongly decided, but at this point our adherence to Sheppard is law of the case. (Quackenbush v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 867, 874.)"