United States v. Albert Jordan

How courts have described this case

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

• addressing exception to law of the case doctrine “where we are convinced our decision in the prior appeal is clearly erroneous and following it would work a manifest injustice”
• “An argument is rejected by necessary implication when the holding stated or result reached is inconsistent with the argument.”
• “The law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of issues that were decided, either explicitly or by necessary implication, in an earlier appeal of the same case.”
• “The law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of issues that were decided, either explicitly or by necessary implication, in an earlier appeal of the same case.”
• “The law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of issues that were decided, either explicitly or by necessary implication, in an earlier appeal of the same case.”
• “The law of the case doctrine bars relitigation of issues that were decided, either explicitly or by necessary implication, in an earlier appeal of the same case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).