- 39 -
appellate court on a legal issue must be followed in all
subsequent proceedings in the same case. United States v. Hughes
Aircraft Co., 243 F.3d 1181, 1186-1187 (9th Cir. 2001); Caldwell
v. Unified Capital Corp. (In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc.), 77 F.3d
278, 281 (9th Cir. 1996). In accordance with the law of the case
doctrine and the mandate of the Court of Appeals, there have been
subsequent proceedings in this Court, including discovery,
multiple sessions of an additional evidentiary hearing, and
briefing by the parties, with the goal of “the fashioning of such
judgments which, to the extent possible and practicable, should
put these taxpayers in the same position as provided for in the
Thompson settlement.” Dixon v. Commissioner, 316 F.3d at 1047
n.11. For purposes of the motions now before us, it is obviously
appropriate to assume that any “judgments” we may fashion
pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ mandate will be substantially
more favorable to the affected taxpayers than if they had
accepted and become bound by the 7-percent reduction settlement
offered by respondent in January 1993.
In the present cases, petitioners ask us to vacate their
stipulated decisions so that they can participate in the benefits
to be generated by the subsequent proceedings mandated by the
Court of Appeals in Dixon V. We shall not grant their request.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011