The magistrate court held that the community was entitled to be reimbursed for the $13,797.80 it expended towards Jerry's separate property tax liability, citing Swanson v. Swanson , 134 Idaho 512, 518, 5 P.3d 973, 979 (2000), in support. The district court affirmed the magistrate court, relying on Swanson for the proposition that community funds expended on separate property tax liability is reimbursable to the community.
It generally applies to decisions by appellate courts , whether that decision comes from a district court acting in its intermediate appellate capacity, the Court of Appeals, or this Court. SeeSwanson v. Swanson , 134 Idaho 512, 515, 5 P.3d 973, 976 (2000) ; Creem v. Nw. Mut. Fire Ass'n of Seattle, Wash. , 58 Idaho 349, 352, 74 P.2d 702, 703 (1937) ; Brinton v. Johnson , 41 Idaho 583, 592, 240 P. 859, 861 (1925). Contrary to VE's and VPS's use of the doctrine, we have never held that the decisions of trial courts operate as "law of the case" against an appellate court's decision-making in the first appeal, i.e., that it exerts bottom-up constraint on appellate decision-making.
The doctrine prevents relitigating issues decided by a district court acting in its appellate capacity, even when an appeal was not taken to the Supreme Court. Swanson v. Swanson, 134 Idaho 512, 515–46, 5 P.3d 973, 976–77 (2000). Citing the Sun Valley district court decision–whieh likewise included the Director, IDWR, and the Big Wood & Little Wood Water Users Association–Sun Valley Company asserts "[a]ll parties agree that an area of common ground water supply applicable to the Big Wood and Little Wood River must be determined."
The law of the case doctrine provides that when "an appellate court states a principle of law in deciding a case, that rule becomes the law of the case and is controlling both in the lower court and on subsequent appeals as long as the facts are substantially the same." Safaris Unlimited, LLC v. Jones , 169 Idaho 644, 651, 501 P.3d 334, 341 (2021) (quoting Swanson v. Swanson , 134 Idaho 512, 516, 5 P.3d 973, 977 (2000) ). Here, the district court correctly denied Burns’ request for attorney fees from Burns 2020 because this Court's decision denying Burns’ request for fees on appeal became the law of the case.
Safaris Unlimited, LLC v. Jones, 169 Idaho 644, 651, 501 P.3d 334, 341 (2021) (quoting Swanson v. Swanson, 134 Idaho 512, 516, 5 P.3d 973, 977 (2000)). Here, the district court correctly denied Burns' request for attorney fees from Burns 2020 because this Court's decision denying Burns' request for fees on appeal became the law of the case.
Such pronouncements must be adhered to throughout subsequent proceedings, both in the trial court and upon subsequent appeal. Swanson v. Swanson , 134 Idaho 512, 515, 5 P.3d 973, 976 (2000). "The underlying purpose of the doctrine is to ‘maintain consistency and avoid reconsideration of matters once decided during the course of a single, continuous lawsuit[.]’ "
When "an appellate court states a principle of law in deciding a case, that rule becomes the law of the case and is controlling both in the lower court and on subsequent appeals as long as the facts are substantially the same." Swanson v. Swanson , 134 Idaho 512, 516, 5 P.3d 973, 977 (2000) (citation omitted). Decisions on issues during one stage of the proceeding become precedent for later stages of the same litigation.
requires that when an appellate court, in "deciding a case presented states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision , such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the trial court and upon subsequent appeal[.]" Berrett v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 161 , 165 Idaho 913, 921, 454 P.3d 555, 563 (2019) (quoting Regan v. Owen , 163 Idaho 359, 363, 413 P.3d 759, 763 (2018) (italics in original)); see also Swanson v. Swanson , 134 Idaho 512, 515, 5 P.3d 973, 976 (2000). "The underlying purpose of the doctrine is to ‘maintain consistency and avoid reconsideration of matters once decided during the course of a single, continuing lawsuit.
that "upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding a case presented states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the trial court and upon subsequent appeal. ..." Swanson v. Swanson , 134 Idaho 512, 515, 5 P.3d 973, 976 (2000) (quoting Suitts v. First Sec. Bank of Idaho , 110 Idaho 15, 21, 713 P.2d 1374, 1380 (1985) ). This "doctrine also prevents consideration on a subsequent appeal of alleged errors that might have been, but were not, raised in the earlier appeal."
The "law of the case" doctrine is well established in Idaho. Swanson v. Swanson, 134 Idaho 512, 515, 5 P.3d 973, 976 (2000). The doctrine requires that when an appellate court, in "deciding a case presented states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision , such pronouncement becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the trial court and upon subsequent appeal ...."