Opinion ID: 167630
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: See Williams I, 403 F.3d at 1195, n.7 & 1198.

Text: Under the law of the case doctrine, “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages -2- of the same case.” Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983). Further, “w hen a case is appealed and remanded, the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and ordinarily will be followed by both the trial court on remand and the appellate court in any subsequent appeal.” Rohrbaugh v. Celotex Corp., 53 F.3d 1181, 1183 (10th Cir.1995). “The law of the case doctrine is intended to prevent continued re-argument of issues already decided . . . .” Huffman v. Saul Holdings, Ltd. P’ship, 262 F.3d 1128, 1132 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citation omitted). This Court has recognized only three narrow exceptions to the doctrine: “(1) when the evidence in a subsequent trial is substantially different; (2) when controlling authority has subsequently made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues; or (3) when the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” M cIlravy v. Kerr- M cGee Coal Corp., 204 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). W illiams does not argue these exceptions and rightly so. None of these circumstances exists here. W e decided all issues raised in this appeal in William s I. The law of the case doctrine applies. A FFIR ME D. Entered by the C ourt: Terrence L. O ’Brien