Opinion ID: 2581372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the settled law of the case in allen i bars on remand relitigation of lynn hickey's liability on the nisi prius-rejected theories of agency and negligent entrustment

Text: ¶ 10 The settled-law-of-the-case doctrine operates to bar relitigation of issues that are finally decided by an appellate opinion as well as of those the aggrieved party failed to raise by its appeal. [18] Any challenge on an issue tendered for corrective relief but left unresolved by the appellate court is deemed to have survived appellate scrutiny and to have ripened into settled law. [19] The unassailed part of the nisi prius judgment is always to be considered finally settled. [20] ¶ 11 The Allens' claim against Lynn Hickey tendered three theories of liability  agency, negligent entrustment and negligent sale. [21] After the trial court summarily ruled that Lynn Hickey was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, Lynn Hickey moved for summary relief by targeting for elimination only the first two theories. The trial court's prejudgment order summarily sustained Lynn Hickey's quest. According to COCA's opinion in Allen I, although the trial court found there was no negligent entrustment or agency, it failed to make any disposition on the law or facts relating to the alternative theory of negligent sale to an incompetent driver. Viewing its Allen II pronouncement on the ownership issue as interconnected with Allen I's disposition, COCA remanded the cause in the former appeal's opinion for proceedings . . . on the . . . [theory] of negligent sale of a vehicle. ¶ 12 Because COCA failed to address itself to a review of the summary ruling on the theories of agency and negligent entrustment, and none of the parties sought certiorari (for review of that ruling), the nisi prius disposition of those theories must stand today as undisturbed by the appellate court's pronouncement. The only theory left open by COCA's Allen I opinion is whether Lynn Hickey was in fact negligent in selling the vehicle. In contrast to this, the ownership question is explicitly an issue in Allen II but stands untendered in Allen I. This is so because the appealing parties in the latter appeal (the Allens) did not challenge the nisi prius ruling on that point. The ownership question was simply untendered since the Allens, who were victorious (on that issue) at nisi prius, did not wish to disturb a favorable ruling by their own appeal. ¶ 13 Because Lynn Hickey's alleged liability (on the theories of agency and negligent entrustment), though tendered for review, was left undisturbed by COCA's Allen I pronouncement, the trial judge's original ruling (upon those theories) in favor of Lynn Hickey must now be confirmed as settled law. A timely-pressed relief by certiorari was the Allens' only avenue to avoid the settled-law-of-the-case bar. The sole remaining liability theory that survives for relitigation on today's remand is hence that of Lynn Hickey's allegedly negligent sale.