Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): downtown at the polygraph.” Defense counsel continued the examination until Judge Morrissey called for a sidebar. Considering any error to have been harmless, Judge Morrissey denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial. Judge Morrissey then admonished Pienta not to again make mention of any polygraph. The jury was not instructed because defense counsel indicated that he wanted the subject to be minimized. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, generally, a rule established as controlling in a particular case will continue to be the law of the case, as long as the facts remain the same. (14 Ill. L. & Prac. Law of the Case §74, at 233 (1968); see PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Investment Co. (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 291, 312; Bradley v. Howard Hembrough Volkswagen, Inc. (1980), 89 Ill. App. 3d 121, 124 (<HOLDING>); see also Christianson v. Colt Industries 
 Holding statements: (A) holding court is bound by views of law in its previous opinion in a case unless the facts presented require a different interpretation (B) holding that appellate court is not bound by the agencys interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue (C) holding that court is bound by prior panels interpretation of supreme court decision (D) holding that agency is bound by its regulations (E) holding that claim preclusion did not apply even though the legal theory at issue in that case was addressed in a previous case because the case at issue was based on a different set of operative facts
Output (English): holding that claim preclusion did not apply even though the legal theory at issue in that case was addressed in a previous case because the case at issue was based on a different set of operative facts