Opinion ID: 2358309
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Binding Effect of Order Appointing GAL

Text: [¶ 15] Douglas contends that the district court's decision to appoint a GAL to look into Douglas's allegations became the law of this case and, thereafter, the district court could not return this litigation to a position where the necessity for a GAL was a matter subject to a motion for summary judgment. We apply this reasoning to our review of this issue: Under the law of the case doctrine, a court's decision on an issue of law at one stage of a proceeding is binding in successive stages of the litigation. Triton Coal Co. v. Husman, Inc., 846 P.2d 664, 667 (Wyo.1993), citing 1B James W. Moore, Jo Esha Lucas & Thomas S. Currier, MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE, ¶ 0.404[1] (2d ed.1983). Ordinarily, the law of the case doctrine requires a trial court to adhere to its own prior rulings, the rulings of an appellate court, or another judge's rulings in the case or a closely related case. Id. at 667-68. The law of the case doctrine is a discretionary rule which does not constitute a limitation on the court's power but merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided. Brown v. State, 953 P.2d 1170, 1174 (Wyo.1998). The law of the case doctrine is subject to some exceptions. Wessel v. City of Albuquerque, 463 F.3d 1138, 1144 (10th Cir. 2006). One of those exceptions applies when the evidence in a subsequent trial is substantially different from that presented in the earlier proceeding. Id. Additionally, the law of the case doctrine applies only to issues actually decided, not to issues left open. 18B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction § 4478 (2d ed.2002). Lieberman v. Mossbrook, 2009 WY 65, ¶¶ 28-29, 208 P.3d 1296, 1305-06 (Wyo.2009). [¶ 16] Here, it is quite unmistakable that the district court did not decide the issue of whether or not a guardian/conservator was a necessity, it only decided that in the interests of caution that further independent inquiry was warranted before a decision about necessity was finally made. The GAL's report exposed most of the content of Douglas's complaint to be incorrect and/or exaggerated. The district court had not decided the issue of necessity, it only decided that inquiry into very serious allegations of personal abuse of Mrs. Parkhurst and waste of her estate was a prudent first step. Because of these circumstances, we conclude that the law of the case doctrine had no application.