Landmark Cases on the Law-of-the-case Doctrine: The law-of-the-case doctrine is designed to prevent repetitive litigation of the same issue in a single criminal or civil case. (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 441, citing People v. Whitt (1990) 51 Cal.3d 620, 638, and People v. Shuey (1975) 13 Cal.3d 835, 841.) "'The doctrine of "law of the case" deals with the effect of the first appellate decision on the subsequent retrial or appeal: The decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.'" (Morohoshi v. Pacific Home (2004) 34 Cal.4th 482, 491, quoting 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, 895, p. 928.) "'Application of the rule is now subject to the qualifications that "the point of law involved must have been necessary to the prior decision, that the matter must have been actually presented and determined by the court, and that application of the doctrine will not result in an unjust decision." ' An 'unjust decision' may result when 'the controlling rules of law have been altered or clarified by a decision intervening between the first and second determinations of the appellate courts. ' " (People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1161, quoting People v. Shuey, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 842, and DiGenova v. State Board of Education (1962) 57 Cal.2d 167, 179-180.) The law of the case doctrine provides "that where an appellate court states a rule of law necessary to its decision, such rule '"must be adhered to"' in any '"subsequent appeal"' in the same case, even where the former decision appears to be '"erroneous."'" (People v. Whitt (1990) 51 Cal.3d 620, 638 274 Cal. Rptr. 252, 798 P.2d 849.) Thus, the law of the case doctrine "prevents the parties from seeking appellate reconsideration of an already decided issue in the same case absent some significant change in circumstances." (Ibid.) However, "the principal ground for making an exception to the doctrine of law of the case is an intervening or contemporaneous change in the law." (Clemente v. California (1985) 40 Cal.3d 202, 212 219 Cal. Rptr. 445, 707 P.2d 818.) Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the determination by an appellate court of an issue of law is conclusive in subsequent proceedings in the same case. (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 441.) The doctrine applies only if the issue was actually presented to and determined by the appellate court. (People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 197.) The doctrine is one of procedure that prevents parties from seeking reconsideration of an issue already decided absent some significant change in circumstances. (People v. Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 441.) But the law-of-the-case doctrine does not limit the evidence that may be offered on the retrial of an issue of fact, and it controls the outcome of a retrial only if the evidence is substantially the same. (Id. at p. 442; Barragan, supra, 32 Cal.4th at pp. 246-247.) Accordingly, the law-of-the-case doctrine does not preclude the presentation of new evidence on a suppression issue after a conviction has been reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. (People v. Boyer, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 442; see also Cooper, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at pp. 526-527 law-of-the-case doctrine did not apply to subsequent retrial of defendant after habeas corpus relief granted and new evidence was presented on retrial.) There are exceptions to the law of the case doctrine. "The doctrine of the law of the case is recognized as a harsh one and the modern view is that it should not be adhered to when the application of it results in a manifestly unjust decision. However, it is generally followed in this state. But a court is not absolutely precluded by the law of the case from reconsidering questions decided upon a former appeal. Procedure and not jurisdiction is involved. Where there are exceptional circumstances, a court which is looking to a just determination of the rights of the parties to the litigation and not merely to rules of practice, may and should decide the case without regard to what has gone before." (England v. Hospital of the Good Samaritan (1939) 14 Cal.2d 791, 795.) "The principal ground for making an exception to the doctrine of law of the case is an intervening or contemporaneous change in the law." (Clemente v. State of California (1985) 40 Cal.3d 202, 212.) The doctrine can also be disregarded to avoid an unjust decision. However, "If the rule is to be other than an empty formalism more must be shown than that a court on a subsequent appeal disagrees with a prior appellate determination. Otherwise the doctrine would lose all vitality . . . since an unsuccessful petitioner for pretrial writ review could always maintain on subsequent appeal that the prior adjudication resulted in an 'unjust decision.' We do not propose to catalogue or to attempt to conjure up all possible circumstances under which the 'unjust decision' exception might validly operate, but judicial order demands there must at least be demonstrated a manifest misapplication of existing principles resulting in substantial injustice before an appellate court is free to disregard the legal determination made in a prior appellate proceeding." (People v. Shuey (1975) 13 Cal.3d 835, 846; see also Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 298 at p. 309.) That Law of the Case doctrine is "that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court 'states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal ... .' " (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 892-893 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 728, 838 P.2d 250, fn. omitted.) As stated by the Supreme Court, "The doctrine of the law of the case does not extend to points of law which might have been but were not presented and determined on a prior appeal." (DiGenova v. State Board of Education (1962) 57 Cal.2d 167, 179 18 Cal. Rptr. 369, 367 P.2d 865.) But as noted in Ellison v. Ventura Port District (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 574, 579 145 Cal. Rptr. 665, "This general rule ... is ... subject to an important exception. The doctrine is held applicable to questions not expressly decided but implicitly decided because they were essential to the decision on the prior appeal. " A question has been impliedly decided, even though not expressly mentioned in an appellate opinion, if the appellate court could not have rendered its opinion without deciding the issue. (City of Oakland v. Superior Court (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 267, 277-278 197 Cal. Rptr. 729.) "Under the law of the case doctrine, when an appellate court '"states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout the case's subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal . . . ."' Absent an applicable exception, the doctrine 'requires both trial and appellate courts to follow the rules laid down upon a former appeal whether such rules are right or wrong.' As its name suggests, the doctrine applies only to an appellate court's decision on a question of law; it does not apply to questions of fact." (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 76, 83 P.3d 480.) Hence, "the law of the case doctrine is subject to an important limitation: it 'applies only to the principles of law laid down by the court as applicable to a retrial of fact,' and 'does not embrace the facts themselves . . . .' In other words, although an appellate court's legal determination constitutes the law of the case, 'upon a retrial . . . that law must be applied by the trial court to the evidence presented upon the second trial.' Thus, during subsequent proceedings in the same case, an appellate court's binding legal determination 'controls the outcome only if the evidence on retrial or rehearing of an issue is substantially the same as that upon which the appellate ruling was based. ' Where, on remand, 'there is a substantial difference in the evidence to which the announced principle of law is applied, . . . the doctrine may not be invoked.'" (People v. Barragan, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 246.) Significantly, "nothing in the law of the case doctrine itself limits the additional evidence that a party may introduce on retrial to that which 'could not have been presented at the first trial through the exercise of due diligence.'" (People v. Barragan, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 247.) "The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court 'states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal.' " (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 888, 892-893 [12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 728, 838 P.2d 250].)