Opinion ID: 2852524
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Chevron’s Cross-Appeal

Text: ¶61 Litigants must cross-appeal ―if they wish to attack a judgment of a lower court for the purpose of enlarging their own rights or lessening the rights of their opponent.‖ State v. South, 924 P.2d 354, 355 (Utah 1996). ―Conversely, if appellees . . . merely desire the affirmance of the lower court‘s judgment, they need not, and should not, cross-appeal . . . .‖ Id. at 356. Improper cross-appeals unnecessarily lengthen the briefing process, ―multiply the number of briefs filed[,] and lead to confusion of the issues presented.‖ Id. ¶62 Although Chevron filed a notice of cross-appeal from the summary judgment, it does not seek to enlarge its rights under the judgment or lessen the rights of Ms. Helf. Instead, Chevron seeks an affirmance of the summary judgment in its favor on an alternative ground that was rejected by the district court—that the election of remedies doctrine bars the suit. Appellees, however, may not use a cross-appeal as a vehicle for arguing for the affirmance a district court‘s judgment. Appellees must instead raise an alternative ground for affirmance in the briefing of the initial appeal. 19 HELF v. CHEVRON Opinion of the Court ¶63 We therefore dismiss Chevron‘s cross-appeal. But we shall consider Chevron‘s election of remedies argument found in the briefing on the cross-appeal. B. The Law of the Case Doctrine Does Not Prohibit this Court from Considering Chevron’s Election of Remedies Argument ¶64 ―Under the law of the case doctrine, issues resolved by this court on appeal bind the trial court on remand, and generally bind this court should the case return on appeal after remand.‖ Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah, 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9, 31 P.3d 543. When applied to this court after a case returns to us for a second time, this doctrine ―is not an inexorable command that rigidly binds [this] court to its former decisions.‖ Id. But we will not deviate from our prior decisions in a case unless we have good cause to do so. See id. ¶65 Of course in order for the law of the case doctrine to apply at all, this court must have actually decided the issue in a prior opinion. Ms. Helf contends that we resolved the election of remedies issue in our previous opinion in this case, and that we should remain true to our prior decision. In our prior opinion, this court never so much as mentioned the election of remedies doctrine, much less