State v. Higgins

6 Citing cases

  1. Kneebinding, Inc. v. Howell

    2018 Vt. 101 (Vt. 2018)   Cited 13 times
    Observing that private parties may contract to waive even rights of constitutional magnitude

    It pertains to conclusions of law and questions of fact in the absence of new evidence, Coty v. Ramsey Assocs., Inc., 154 Vt. 168, 171, 573 A.2d 694, 696 (1990), in both criminal and civil proceedings. State v. Higgins, 156 Vt. 192, 193, 588 A.2d 1062, 1063 (1991). Generally, courts invoke the doctrine in two scenarios: (1) where a case is in front of the trial court on remand for readjudication after appellate review, Perkins, 106 Vt. at 415, 177 A. at 653 ; and (2) where a trial court "reconsiders its own ruling on an issue in the absence of an intervening ruling on the issue by a higher court."

  2. State v. Gomes

    166 Vt. 589 (Vt. 1996)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that departure from law of the case doctrine is warranted if there has been a substantial change in evidence, or adherence to the previous decision would result in manifest injustice

    We have observed that "on remand the trial court is constrained to follow `our specific directions as interpreted in light of the opinion.'" State v. Higgins, 156 Vt. 192, 193, 588 A.2d 1062, 1062 (1991) (quoting Coty v. Ramsey Assocs., 154 Vt. 168, 171, 573 A.2d 694, 696 (1990)). When a case is remanded, our decision is the law of the case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings.

  3. In re Fitzgerald

    2020 Vt. 14 (Vt. 2020)   Cited 5 times
    Explaining that "on remand the trial court is constrained to follow our specific directions"

    (quotation omitted), when this Court remands a case, "our decision is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings." State v. Higgins, 156 Vt. 192, 193, 588 A.2d 1062, 1062 (1991) (quotation omitted). Therefore, "on remand the trial court is constrained to follow our specific directions as interpreted in light of the opinion."

  4. Rounds v. Malletts Bay Club, Inc.

    SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2017-290 (Vt. Jan. 8, 2018)

    When a case is remanded, our decision is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all the subsequent proceedings." State v. Higgins, 156 Vt. 192, 193 (1991) (recognizing that "law-of-the-case doctrine applies in criminal as well as civil proceedings") (quotations omitted). Here, the trial court was directed to address "[the] plaintiffs' remaining claim that the amendment was not validly voted on and approved."

  5. State v. Durham

    SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2015-196 (Vt. Dec. 18, 2015)

    We conclude that this argument is precluded under the circumstances by the law-of-the-case doctrine, which "applies in criminal as well as civil proceedings." State v. Higgins, 156 Vt. 192, 193 (1991). That doctrine precludes not only those issues decided in earlier proceedings before remand by a court of last resort, but also those issues that were not raised but could have been raised during the earlier proceeding.

  6. State v. Gibney

    869 A.2d 118 (Vt. 2005)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that because this Court remanded for consideration of single issue at resentencing hearing the "court correctly refused to consider arguments defendant waived in his original appeal and that were not specified in the remand"

    We remanded solely for the court to "reconsider the sentence" in light of the corrected number of victims. Gibney, 2003 VT 26, ΒΆ 53; see State v. Higgins, 156 Vt. 192, 193, 588 A.2d 1062, 1062-63 (1991) ("It is axiomatic that on remand the trial court is constrained to follow `our specific directions as interpreted in light of the opinion.'" (quoting Coty v. Ramsey Assocs., 154 Vt. 168, 171, 573 A.2d 694, 696 (1990))).