Kritsidimas v. Sheskin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the \law of the case\ does not control \where the first ruling is clearly erroneous in light of newly-presented facts\
• stating that suppression motions ―demand detailed judicial consideration of specific facts‖ and ―often require hearings and findings of fact,‖ which are ―the kinds of judicial exercises the ‗law of the case‘ doctrine is designed to prevent being repeated‖
• describing rulings which require “hearings and findings of fact [as] exactly the kinds of judicial exercises the ‘law of the case’ doctrine [covers]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).