Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins
661 S.E.2d 822, 276 Va. 19, 2008 Va. LEXIS 65 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 'law of the case' doctrine, a party who fails to properly appeal a decision at one stage of litigation is barred from re-litigating the same issues, or issues necessarily involved in the first decision, in a subsequent appeal between the same parties concerning the same underlying dispute.
Facts:
- In 2000, Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins entered into a civil union in Vermont.
- In 2002, Lisa gave birth to a child, IMJ, through artificial insemination while the couple lived in Virginia.
- The family moved to Vermont but in September 2003, Lisa and IMJ moved back to Virginia over Janet's objection.
- In November 2003, Lisa filed to dissolve the civil union in a Vermont family court.
- The Vermont court issued a temporary custody order granting Lisa custody of IMJ and Janet visitation rights.
- After initially complying, Lisa refused to permit Janet to have any further contact with IMJ, in violation of the Vermont court's order.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Miller-Jenkins filed a petition in a Virginia circuit court (trial court) seeking sole custody of IMJ.
- The Virginia circuit court entered an order awarding sole custody to Lisa, finding that Janet had no parental rights.
- Janet Miller-Jenkins (appellant) appealed the circuit court's custody order to the Court of Appeals of Virginia (intermediate appellate court) in what is referred to as the 'first Virginia appeal'.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, holding that under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), Vermont had sole jurisdiction over the custody dispute.
- Lisa (appellant) filed a petition for appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which was dismissed for her failure to file a proper notice of appeal.
- Separately, Janet sought to register the Vermont custody order in a Virginia juvenile and domestic relations court (trial-level court), which was granted.
- Lisa appealed the registration to the Virginia circuit court, which reversed the registration.
- Janet (appellant) appealed that reversal to the Court of Appeals, which summarily reversed the circuit court and reinstated the registration based on its decision in the first Virginia appeal.
- Lisa (appellant) now appeals the second Court of Appeals decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia, with Janet as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'law of the case' doctrine prevent a party from re-litigating issues that were decided in a prior appeal involving the same parties and the same underlying legal dispute, when that prior appeal was not properly perfected?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barbara Milano Keenan
Yes, the 'law of the case' doctrine prevents re-litigation. The doctrine bars Lisa from re-litigating issues that were conclusively decided in a prior, unperfected appeal. The doctrine holds that when there have been two appeals in the same case between the same parties, nothing decided on the first appeal can be re-examined on a second appeal. The Court of Appeals' first decision resolved the controlling legal issues, including that the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) required Virginia to give full faith and credit to the Vermont custody order. Because Lisa failed to properly perfect her appeal of that decision, it became the 'law of the case,' binding on all subsequent stages of this litigation, regardless of whether it was rightly or wrongly decided. The current appeal, though arising from a separate proceeding to register the Vermont order, is part of the 'same litigation' as it involves the same parties and the same core custody dispute, making the prior ruling conclusive.
Concurring - Chief Justice Hassell
Yes, the 'law of the case' doctrine prevents re-litigation. The doctrine prohibits the Court from considering the merits of the prior appeal in this proceeding. While I have serious concerns that the Court of Appeals' decision in the first appeal was not correctly decided, Lisa Miller-Jenkins failed to perfect an appeal from that decision as required by law. Therefore, this Court is procedurally barred from reviewing that decision now, and the 'law of the case' doctrine must be applied.
Analysis:
This case serves as a powerful illustration of the finality of judicial decisions and the critical importance of adhering to procedural rules. It demonstrates that a procedural error, such as failing to properly perfect an appeal, can cement a lower court's ruling as the definitive law for that specific case, foreclosing any future review on the merits by a higher court. The decision reinforces the 'law of the case' doctrine as a tool of judicial efficiency that prevents parties from endlessly re-litigating issues that have already been decided. For students, it underscores that procedural correctness is as crucial as the substantive legal arguments in litigation.
