Loumar, Inc. v. Charles Smith and Michael J. Smith, Individually and D/B/A S & S Supply

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that under the law of the case doctrine, a second court should follow a ruling made by an earlier court unless the prior decision was erroneous, is no longer sound, or would create injustice
• stating “the amount of business obtained from the advertisements” was relevant to the question of whether placing advertisements in national magazine alone was sufficient for exercise of personal jurisdiction
• stating “the amount of business obtained from [ ] advertisements” was relevant to the question of whether placing advertisements in national magazine alone was sufficient for exercise of personal jurisdiction
• \The law of the case doctrine is not ... a barrier to correction of judicial error. It is a rule of convenience and utility and yields to adequate reason....\
• “The law of the case doctrine is not . . . a barrier to correction of judicial error. It is a rule of convenience and utility and yields to adequate reason . . . .”
• The law of the case doctrine is a “rule of practice, based upon sound policy that when an issue is once litigated and decided, that should be the end of the matter.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).