RULES OF THE COURT CITED (1969 EDITION) 33(b); Mesa Ranch; Koebler 34(a); Baker 35; Lemelson 36; Lemelson; Neconie 39(a); Rhoades 39(b); Fairfield Scientific Corp. 40(a) & (e); Rhoades 41; Starobin, (a)(1) & (2); Lafayette Oil Co. 53(c)(2); National Presto, (i), Oneida Nation 54(a); McDonnell Douglas, (b); Childress 71(f); National Presto 73(d); Petrofsky 101(d); Fairfield Scientific Corp., (f); Hudelson; Baker 102(a)(1); Baker, (ii); Mountain Fir Lumber Co. 102(b); Baker, (c); Nalder 123(c); National Presto 131; Miami Tribe, (a); Navajo Tribe #229, (b); Caddo Tribe 131(c); American Fletcher Nat'l Bank; J. Davis; Eddy; Ellis; Gilman; Godbee; K & R Engr. Co.; Moody; National Trailer Convoy; Ness; Southland Corp.; Weise 132(c)(2); Mountain Fir Lumber Co. 134(h); Gallentine; Gutman; Hillard; National Trailer Convoy 141(b); National Trailer Convoy 147(b); Montgomery Coca-Cola Co. 149; Stewart, (f); Fairfield Scientific Corp.; Mountain Fir Lumber Co. 151, 152; Campbell 152(b); Brown 166(c); American Electronics Lab.; Mountain Fir Lumber Co. DESIGNATION OF A SENIOR JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS FOR SERVICE IN ANOTHER CIRCUIT The Chief Justice of the United States, the Honorable Warren E. Burger, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Title 28, United States Code, designated and assigned the Honorable Byron G. Skelton, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Claims, to perform the duties of a district judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas during the period beginning February 25, 1980 and ending March 29, 1980 and for such additional time in advance thereof to prepare for the trial of cases or thereafter as may be required to complete unfinished business. 385-878 O 82 - 2 CASES DECIDED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS DECEMBER 1, 1979 TO FEBRUARY 29, 1980 and Other CASES NOT 612 F.2d 517 THE UNITED STATES v. TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, RED LAKE AND PEMBINA BANDS, LITTLE SHELL BAND OF MONTANA, AND LITTLE SHELL BAND OF NORTH DAKOTA [App. No. 8-78. Decided December 12, 1979] ON APPEAL FROM THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION Indian claims; former decision as the law of the case; interlocutory order affirmed on appeal; land valuation.—The United States has appealed from an order of the Indian Claims Commission awarding the Indian claimants $52,527,337.97 as compensation for the extinguishment of their aboriginal title to land in 1905 as determined by the court in its prior decision reported at 203 Ct. Cl. 426, 490 F. 2d 935 (1974). The United States contends (1) that the court should reexamine the prior decision that aboriginal title was extinguished in 1905, and (2) that the Commission applied an incorrect standard in valuating the Indians' land as of the extinguishment date. Respecting (1), it is held that the earlier decision is the law of the case, and that neither the alleged error of that decision nor new evidence introduced at the trial justifies departing from the prior decision. Respecting (2), it is held that the Commission's decision correctly applied the principle this court has followed in the valuation of aboriginal title Indian claim-the value enhancement resulting from improvements placed on the land prior to the valuation date is properly included in the fair market value of the land. The Commission's determination of the value of the land was proper and its order is affirmed. The case is referred to the trial division to determine the amount of gratuitous offsets to which the Government may be entitled. Courts; former decision as law of the case. [1] Once a case has been decided on appeal, the rule adopted is to be applied, right or wrong, absent exceptional circumstances in the 1 222 Ct. Cl. disposition of the lawsuit. Thus, where this court's prior decision reported at 203 Ct. Cl. 426, 490 F. 2d 935 (1974), definitively determined that the Indians' aboriginal title was extinguished in 1905, that was a final judgment on that issue impervious to challenge on subsequent appeal. Courts 99(1) Courts; former decision as law of the case. [2] No litigant deserves an opportunity to go over the same ground twice, hoping that the passage of time or changes in the composition of the court will provide a more favorable result the second time. Courts 99(1) Indian claims; Indian Claims Commission; appellate review by Court of Claims. [3] The provision in 25 U.S.C. § 70s(b) that permitted appeals to this court from any interlocutory determination by the Commission establishing liability of the United States was designed to give the parties before the Commission the opportunity to avoid the time and expense involved in litigating questions relating to the amount of recovery until liability of the United States definitively was determined. United States 113 Pleading and practice; trial; new trial. [4] Issues fully resolved at the liability stage are not open for reargument in later stages. Federal Courts 1101 Pleading and practice; orders; interlocutory order; law of the case. [5] Generally, once affirmed on appeal, an interlocutory order loses its interlocutory character and becomes the law of the case. Courts; former decision as law of the case. [6] Although law of the case is not an inexorable command, as a matter of sound judicial practice a court generally adheres to a decision in a prior appeal in the same case unless the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, or controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues, or the decision was clearly erroneous and works a manifest injustice. Federal Courts 950 Courts; former decision as law of the case. [7] The mere contention that the prior decision was incorrect. or that if the court considered the issue anew it probably would come out the other way, is not good reason for permitting relitigation of an issue decided in a prior appeal. A prior decision is the law of the case even when the original decision was rendered without dispute or when the arguments against the first decision are newly presented at the second appeal. Courts; former decision as law of the case. [8] The purpose of the law of the case principle is to provide finality of judicial decisions. A strong showing of clear error therefore is required before a court should reexamine its decision in the prior appeal. Federal Courts 950 |