Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

While Law-of-the-Case Doctrine Does Not Bind Court of Appeals with the Same Rigidity as the District Court, It Should Be Departed From Only Sparingly — Factors

United States v. Aquart, 92 F.4th 77 (2d Cir. 2024):

*** While the law-of-the-case doctrine does not bind this court with the same “rigidity” that the mandate rule binds the district court, United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir. 2000), we have consistently recognized it to reflect a “sound policy,” id. at 39, that we should depart from “sparingly and only when presented with cogent and compelling reasons,” Puricelli v. Argentina, 797 F.3d 213, 218–19 (2d Cir. 2015); see United States v. Tenzer, 213 F.3d at 39 (stating that “major grounds justifying reconsideration are [1] an intervening change of controlling law, [2] the availability of new evidence, or [3] the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice” (internal quotation marks omitted)). ***

Share this article:


Recent Posts