U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Cambridge University Press v. Albert, Docket No. 16-15726

Doctrine of the law of the case:

Mandate rule:

Remand:

The doctrine of the law of the case “precludes courts from revisiting issues that were already decided.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005). In particular, “findings of fact and conclusions of law by an appellate court are generally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on a later appeal.” Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Inst. of London Underwriters, 430 F.3d 1326, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Heathcoat v. Potts, 905 F.2d 367, 370 (11th Cir. 1990)). And under the mandate rule, which “is nothing more than a specific application of the ‘law of the case’ doctrine,” id. (quoting Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1120 (11th Cir. 1985)), “a district court, when acting under an appellate court’s mandate, ‘cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; . . . or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded,’” Litman v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 825 F.2d 1506, 1510–11 (11th Cir. 1987) (quoting In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255 (1895)). “The trial court must implement both the letter and the spirit of the mandate, taking into account the appellate court’s opinion and the circumstances it embraces.” Piambino, 757 F.2d at 1119.

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Cambridge University Press v. Albert, Oct. 19, 2018, Docket No. 16-15726, Circuit Judge Pryor, for publication)