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."
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.
(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."
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."
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.
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))).