Opinion ID: 786794
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Law-of-the-Case Doctrine and Clearly Established Rights

Text: 76 Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, `[w]here a case has been decided by an appellate court and remanded, the court to which it is remanded must proceed in accordance with the mandate and such law of the case as was established by the appellate court.' United States v. Fernandez, 506 F.2d 1200, 1202 (2d Cir.1974) (quoting 1B Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.404[10], at 571 (2d ed.1974) (footnotes omitted)); see, e.g., Soto-Lopez v. New York City Civil Service Commission, 840 F.2d 162, 167 (2d Cir.1988). Where issues have been `explicitly or implicitly decided on appeal,' ... the law-of-the-case doctrine obliges the district court on remand to follow the decision of the court of appeals.... Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 812 (2d Cir.) (quoting United States v. Uccio, 940 F.2d 753, 758 (2d Cir.1991)) (emphasis ours), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 821, 113 S.Ct. 71, 121 L.Ed.2d 37 (1992). 77 Where the appellate court has decided a question of law, the lower court on remand lacks discretion to decide that question to the contrary. See, e.g., In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255, 16 S.Ct. 291, 40 L.Ed. 414 (1895); Soto-Lopez v. New York City Civil Service Commission, 840 F.2d at 167; United States v. Fernandez, 506 F.2d at 1202-03. Accordingly, when the court of appeals has remanded a case for trial after ruling that summary judgment in favor of a given party was inappropriate because the evidence indicated the existence of genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by the jury, the district court cannot properly, on remand, grant judgment as a matter of law to that party on the basis of trial evidence that is not substantially different. See, e.g., Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d 332, 341-42 (2d Cir.1993); Doe v. New York City Department of Social Services, 709 F.2d 782, 788-89 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864, 104 S.Ct. 195, 78 L.Ed.2d 171 (1983); see also Wakefield v. Northern Telecom, Inc., 813 F.2d 535, 539-40 (2d Cir.1987) (reversing grant of summary judgment for the defendant after remand where, on first appeal, this Court had rejected the defendant's contention that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after trial, and no new material facts were adduced on remand), abrogated on other grounds by Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). See generally Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (the standard for granting summary judgment `mirrors' the standard for judgment as a matter of law, such that `the inquiry under each is the same' (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986))); Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d at 341 (as to whether there are fact issues that should be decided only by the jury, the same standard that applies to a pretrial motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 also applies to motions for judgment as a matter of law during or after trial pursuant to Rule 50). 78 In the prior appeal in the present case, we noted the well-established principle that, in order for a right to be clearly established,  `[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right,' Kerman II, 261 F.3d at 236-37 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). In Glass v. Mayas, a case decided before the events at issue here, involving physicians who took the plaintiff to a mental hospital against his will and confined him there pursuant to state law, we had noted that `a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members.' 984 F.2d at 57 (quoting O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 576, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975)) (emphasis ours). In Kerman II, we reversed the Kerman I ruling that Crossan was entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity on Kerman's unlawful seizure and false imprisonment claims for Kerman's involuntary hospitalization because we found that there were factual issues to be tried. Although we did not cite Glass v. Mayas in our analysis of Crossan's qualified immunity defense, in reversing the district court's ruling we necessarily rejected the proposition that Kerman's rights in October 1995 were not clearly established, for the matter of whether an asserted right was clearly established at the relevant time is a question of law. If Kerman's rights had not been clearly established, we would have affirmed the grant of summary judgment; there would have been no need for a trial. 79 In sum, in remanding for trial in Kerman II, we implicitly held that it was sufficiently clear in light of preexisting law that Kerman had a right not to be detained or involuntarily hospitalized by an officer who (on Kerman's version of the facts) did not know, and who patently ignored opportunities to determine, the seriousness of Kerman's condition and whether he was dangerous to himself or others. In light of the Kerman II decision, it was not open to the district court to decide on remand that that right was not clearly established. 80