Id. (citing Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987)). And when a case has been remanded by a high court, the "law of the case" doctrine is applicable:
The appellate court's opinion becomes the law of the case, Gill v. Godwin, 59 Tenn.App. 582, 786, 442 S.W.2d 661, 662-63 (1967), foreclosing and excluding any complaint, constitutional or otherwise, as to the issues addressed and decided in the appellate court's opinion. Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).
The appellate court's opinion becomes the law of the case, Gill v. Godwin, 59 Tenn.App. 582, 786, 442 S.W.2d 661, 662-63(1967), foreclosing and excluding any complaint, constitutional or otherwise, as to the issues addressed and decided in the appellate court's opinion. Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987).
The appellate court's opinion becomes the law of the case, Gill v. Godwin, 59 Tenn. App. 582, 786, 442 S.W.2d 661, 662-63 (1967), foreclosing and excluding any complaint, constitutional or otherwise, as to the issues addressed and decided in the appellate court's opinion. Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). Thus, the trial court does not have the authority to modify or revise the appellate court's opinion, McDade v. McDade, 487 S.W.2d 659, 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972), or to expand the proceedings beyond the remand order.
The appellate court's opinion becomes the law of the case, Gill v. Godwin, 59 Tenn. App. 582, 786, 442 S.W.2d 661, 662-63 (1967), foreclosing and excluding any complaint, constitutional or otherwise, as to the issues addressed and decided in the appellate court's opinion. Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). Thus, the trial court does not have the authority to modify or revise the appellate court's opinion, McDade v. McDade, 487 S.W.2d 659, 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972), or to
judgments, and mandates" and may limit the scope of a remand. State v. Williams , 52 S.W.3d 109, 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) ; State v. Irick , 906 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tenn. 1995) ; Cook v. McCullough , 735 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Tenn. App. 1977). Such orders and mandates are controlling, and the lower court does not have "the authority to expand the directive or purpose of [the higher] court imposed upon remand."
The appellate court’s opinion becomes the law of the case, Gill v. Godwin , 59 Tenn. App. 582, 786, 442 S.W.2d 661, 662-63 (1967), foreclosing and excluding any complaint, constitutional or otherwise, as to the issues addressed and decided in the appellate court’s opinion. Cook v. McCullough , 735 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). Thus, the trial court does not have the authority to modify or revise the appellate court’s opinion, McDade v. McDade , 487 S.W.2d 659, 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972), or to expand the proceedings beyond the remand order.
Even though jurisdiction in a given case has vested in the Court of Appeals, we can, while generally retaining jurisdiction over the case, remand the case to the trial court for a specific and limited purpose. See generallyCook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1987). Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-3-128 (2000) provides as follows:
State v. Williams, 52 S.W.3d 109, 123 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001); State v. Irick, 906 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tenn. 1995); Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Tenn.App. 1977). Such orders and mandates are controlling, and the lower court does not have "the authority to expand the directive or purpose of [the higher] court imposed upon remand."
State v. Williams, 52 S.W.3d 109, 123 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001); State v. Irick, 906 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tenn. 1995); Cook v. McCullough, 735 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Tenn.App. 1977). Such orders and mandates are controlling, and the lower court does not have "the authority to expand the directive or purpose of [the higher] court imposed upon remand."