- 19 -
Upon remand of the case, a corollary of the law of the case
doctrine, known as the rule of mandate, requires the lower court
to implement both the letter and the spirit of the appellate
court’s mandate. The rule of mandate is similar to, but broader
than, the law of the case doctrine and prohibits the lower court
from disregarding the appellate court’s explicit directives.
Herrington v. County of Sonoma, supra at 904. The lower court,
upon receiving the mandate of an appellate court “cannot vary it
or examine it for any other purpose than execution”. In re
Sanford Fork & Tool Co., supra at 255. The appellate court’s
mandate controls all matters within its scope, and the trial
court cannot give relief beyond the scope of the mandate.
Newball v. Offshore Logistics Intl., 803 F.2d 821, 826 (5th Cir.
1986). Thus, a lower court cannot revisit its already final
determinations unless the mandate allows it. United States v.
Lewis, 862 F.2d 748, 750 (9th Cir. 1988).
While a mandate controls all matters within its scope, on
remand a lower court is free to consider any issue not foreclosed
by the mandate. United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084 (9th
Cir. 2000). Under certain circumstances, the lower court may
issue an order on remand that deviates from the mandate provided
“it is not counter to the spirit of the * * * [appellate] court’s
decision”. Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1404
(9th Cir. 1993).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011