- 79 -
B. Law of the Case
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently
explained the law of the case doctrine as follows:
“The law of the case doctrine requires a district
court to follow the appellate court’s resolution of an
issue of law in all subsequent proceedings in the same
case.” United States ex rel. Lujan v. Hughes Aircraft
Co., 243 F.3d 1181, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001). The doctrine
applies to both the appellate court’s “explicit
decisions as well as those issues decided by necessary
implication.” United States v. Cote, 51 F.3d 178, 181
(9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 880
F.2d 149, 157 (9th Cir. 1989)). * * * [Al-Safin v.
Circuit City Stores, Inc., 394 F.3d 1254, 1258 (9th
Cir. 2005).]
In relying upon its inherent authority to sanction the IRS by
extending the benefit of the Thompson settlement to all
interested parties, the Court of Appeals by necessary implication
concluded that the doctrine of inherent authority trumps the
doctrine of sovereign immunity (the latter generally prohibiting
the imposition of monetary sanctions against the United States
absent the express consent of Congress).42 We therefore are not
concerned with that issue.
42The principle that a court has inherent power to impose
sanctions is well established. “It has long been understood that
‘[c]ertain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts
of justice from the nature of their institution,’ powers ‘which
cannot be dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessary
to the exercise of all others.’” Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32,
43 (1991) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch)
32, 34 (1812)).
Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011