Opinion
No. 05-03-00518-CV.
Opinion filed January 27, 2004.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. cc-03-1251-d.
Affirmed.
Before Justices MOSELEY, FITZGERALD, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Standard Waste Systems, Inc. (Standard Waste) sued BSP Marketing, Incorporated d/b/a BSP Marketing, Inc. (BSP) for breach of contract, among other claims, in justice court and obtained a summary judgment. BSP filed an appeal bond in the justice court. In the county court, Standard Waste moved for dismissal and challenged the appeal bond, alleging it was invalid and void. The county court found the appeal bond was insufficient and provided BSP five days to correct it. In lieu of the appeal bond, BSP made a cash deposit in the amount more than equal to the amount of the judgment, but less than double the amount of the judgment. Standard Waste again moved to dismiss the case, challenging the failure to file a valid appeal bond and the cash deposit in lieu of bond. The county court's order dismissed BSP's case for lack of jurisdiction and remanded it to the justice court.
In two points of error, BSP asserts the county court at law erred: (1) in requiring it to amend its appeal bond under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 571; and (2) dismissing its appeal after it had filed a cash deposit in an amount exceeding the amount of the judgment, albeit less than double the amount of the judgment. Standard Waste argues, inter alia, that these issues were decided against BSP in a previous original proceeding, and that the county court at law judgment thus should be affirmed under the law of the case doctrine. Because the facts are well known to the parties and the issues of law are settled, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex.R.App.P. 47.4. We affirm.
The "law of the case" doctrine is defined as that principle under which questions of law decided on appeal to a court of last resort will govern the case throughout its subsequent stages. Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986); Trevino v. Turcotte, 564 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tex. 1978). By narrowing the issues in successive stages of the litigation, the law of the case doctrine is intended to achieve uniformity of decision as well as judicial economy and efficiency. Hudson, 711 S.W.2d at 630. The doctrine is based on public policy and is aimed at putting an end to litigation. Id.
The law of the case doctrine applies to questions of law, not questions of fact. Id. Further, the doctrine does not necessarily apply when either the issues or the facts presented at successive appeals are not substantially the same as those involved on the first trial. Id. Texas courts also have also long recognized that an exception to the doctrine applies "if the appellate court's original decision is clearly erroneous. . . ." Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex. 2003).
Although an original proceeding is not an "appeal," the doctrine has been held applicable to an original proceeding that reached the merits. See ITC Cellular, Inc. v. Morris, 909 S.W.2d 182, 183 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1995, no writ); Johnnie C. Ivy Plumbing Co. v. Keyser, 601 S.W.2d 158, 159 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1980, no writ); cf. Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 736 S.W.2d 763, 768 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1987) (prior mandamus opinion not law of the case when resolved without reaching the merits), rev'd on other grounds, 760 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. 1988).
In In re BSP Marketing Incorporation d/b/a BSP Marketing, Inc., No. 05-03-00496-CV (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 9, 2003, orig. proceeding [mand denied]) (mem. op.), a panel of this Court concluded that "the relator has failed to show the trial judge abused his discretion in dismissing relator's appeal." The issues presented here are identical to the issues presented in that original proceeding. Additionally, BSP's arguments do not convince us that the opinion in the original proceeding was clearly erroneous. Further, we have reviewed the record in the original proceeding and conclude that, as it relates to BSP's issues here, it is substantially the same as the record in this appeal. Thus, the relevant facts concerning BSP's issues have not changed. Accordingly, the merits determination made in the prior original proceeding is the law of this case. See Hudson, 711 S.W.2d at 630. Thus, we overrule BSP's issues and affirm the trial court's judgment.