Opinion ID: 1706880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the interlocutory order of december 31, 1992 constitutes the law of the case which the lower court was bound to follow.

Text: ¶ 6. In the alternative, Mrs. Fortune asserts that under the law of the case doctrine, the trial court was bound to follow this Court's ruling in Fortune I. This Court has explained the law of the case doctrine as follows: The doctrine of the law of the case is similar to that of former adjudication, relates entirely to questions of law, and is confined in its operation to subsequent proceedings in the case. Whatever is once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts. This principle expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has previously been decided. It is founded on public policy and the interests of orderly and consistent judicial procedure. Simpson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 564 So.2d 1374, 1376 (Miss.1990)(quoting Mississippi College v. May, 241 Miss. 359, 366, 128 So.2d 557, 558 (1961)). But if the facts are different, so that the principles of law announced on the first appeal are not applicable, as where there are material changes in the evidence, pleadings, or findings, a prior decision is not conclusive upon questions presented on the subsequent appeal. Continental Turpentine & Rosin Co. v. Gulf Naval Stores Co., 244 Miss. 465, 480, 142 So.2d 200, 207 (1962) (quoting 3 Am. Jr., Appeal and Error, Sec. 985, p. 541). ¶ 7. In the view of this Court, it is of no consequence to Fortune whether or not the law of the case doctrine applies to the present case, given that this Court in Fortune I merely remanded for proceedings consistent with Presley. The cause of action in the present case arose in 1989, and this Court's 1992 decision in Presley, declaring § 11-46-6 to be unconstitutional, is prospective only. This Court held in Robinson v. Stewart, 655 So.2d 866 (Miss.1995) that: What observers should note is our consistency in refusing to apply Presley retroactively, as opposed to the means in which we achieved our end. What we have stated indirectly we now say directly. Presley has no retroactive application. Robinson, 655 So.2d at 868 [1] . Thus, contrary to Fortune's arguments, Presley favors the position of the Board in the present case, and sovereign immunity applies to the present case through an application of § 11-46-6. See Hord v. City of Yazoo City, 702 So.2d 121 (Miss.1997). This point of error is without merit.