Cited by

issues not determined in the first appeal may, on remand, be litigated.” see also Sigurdson, d at 66 (explaining that “the doctrine of law of the case applies only to litigated issues and does not reach issues which could have been 21 development within a setback area from the Mississippi River Bluff.

“The doctrine of law of the case ‘ordinarily applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal issue and has remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.’” (-20 (Minn. 1987)).

Notably, our holding in Thiele was grounded in a standing-related case, “holding plaintiffs who won their case at trial but later lost on appeal ‘were under an obligation to preserve their alternative theories for standing to sue.’ ” Thiele, d at 582 (quoting Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, ).

“[T] he scope of the finality of an appellate decision depends on what the court intends to be final.”

See, e.g., Sigurdson v. Isanti County , (reviewing the application of the doctrine de novo); Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London , -21 (Minn. 1987) (same); Sylvester Bros. Dev.

In Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London, a case to which both parties cite, the supreme c ourt addressed the question “of the finality of appellate judgments.”

The law-of-the-case doctrine “applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal issue and has remanded the case to the lo wer court for further proceedings.” -20 (Minn. 1987).

the trial court is without jurisdiction to entertain [an appellant’s] post-ap *868 peal motion.” -18 (Minn. 1987).

Mattson v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London

The issue decided becomes ‘law of the case’ and may not be relitigated in the [district] court or reexamined in a second appeal.” (-20 (Minn. 1987)).

Res judicata applies not only to issues actually litigated in a former action, but to issues that “could have been litigated in a former action.” (citing Kaiser, d at 902 (emphasis added)).

“merely states that a district court has no jurisdiction to reopen a judgment to allow a party to argue alternative grounds to challenge it after affirmance on appeal.” Id.

“Issues determined in a first appeal will not be relitigated in the [district] court nor reexamined in a second appeal.”

-22 (Minn. 1987) (stating that plaintiffs who won their case at trial but later lost on appeal “were under an obligation to preserve their alternative theories,” that “if plaintiffs had any concern about sustaining the trial court’s ruling on appeal, they should have taken measures to preserve their other argum

See id.; Mattson v. Underwriters at *410 Lloyds of London, -21 (Minn.1987) (explaining “law of the case” doctrine).

The doctrine of law of the case “ordinarily applies where an appellate court has ruled on a legal issue and has remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.” -20 (Minn.1987).

The “reconsideration of a case on remand (and a subsequent appeal) is a continuation of the original proceeding.”

(issues determined on appeal “will not be relitigated in the trial court nor re-examined in a second appeal”); (appellate court decision on given issue establishes law of case that must be followed on remand to district court), review denie

(holding that appellate court intended reversal of trial court’s decision to conclude litigation, where remand for further proceedings was neither stated nor implied).

-20 (Minn.1987) (refusing appellate review because doctrine of law of the case precludes relitigation of an issue previously decided on appeal in the same case).

-20 (Minn.1987); Lange v. Nelson-Ryan Flight Service, Inc., 263 Minn. 152 , -69 (1962), cert.