Opinion ID: 741729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Manifest Injustice Requirement

Text: 26 Wood also failed to meet the second prong of the clearly erroneous exception to law of the case because she did not demonstrate that a manifest injustice would result from the Jeffries III interpretation. 27 The existence of exceptional circumstances is required before finding a manifest injustice. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 740 F.2d 1071, 1082 n. 19 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1181, 105 S.Ct. 939, 83 L.Ed.2d 951 (1985); See United States v. Miller, 822 F.2d 828 (9th Cir.1987). At a minimum, the challenged decision should involve a significant inequity or the extinguishment of a right before being characterized as manifestly unjust. 28 Wood failed to establish that adherence to law of the case would result in a situation meeting this standard. None of the State of Washington's rights have been extinguished. Retrial and resentencing are available options on remand. Although in some cases the unavailability of witnesses or evidence might result in manifest injustice, the record is devoid of any such showing here. Neither in its briefing, nor at oral argument, was Wood able to make any factual showing of manifest injustice. Thus, we conclude that the panel erred in determining that Jeffries III was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. Jeffries IV, 75 F.3d at 494 (quotation omitted). 29