Procedural law is a court-made law that guarantees judicial economy by preventing parties from raising new issues in subsequent appeals. It is not a doctrine of precedent and does not bind subsequent cases. Procedural law concerns the legitimacy of challenging previous judgments in a single case. The law of the case no longer applies if the facts change or if the court is clearly wrong. Courts will not apply procedural law doctrine when it would create an injustice or if there has been a change in law affecting the present case.
When a court makes a judgment in a lawsuit and the appellate court upholds the judgment, or the appellant does not appeal the judgment, the judgment is considered final and becomes the law of the case. For the purposes of this case, the judgment is not subject to review.
Procedural law is not a doctrine of precedent, nor is stare donos, the legal doctrine that a judgment becomes binding in subsequent cases. It is rather a procedural right aimed at guaranteeing the judicial economy. It prevents the courts from being bogged down by the plaintiff raising new issues in subsequent appeals.
The concept of procedural law, while implicitly practiced for centuries in Great Britain and the United States, has no basis in statutory law. That is to say, there are generally no statutes or laws stating that a judge must abide by it. It is an example of common law, court made law, i.e. binding on all parties.
Procedural law should not be confused with the concept of jurisprudence, the body of law established by court decisions. Procedural law concerns the legitimacy of a party challenging previous judgments in a single case. As long as the facts do not change, the sentence is considered defined for the purposes of subsequent appeals or if the case is referred, or referred back, to the trial judge.
If the facts of a case change or if the court is clearly wrong, the law of the case no longer applies. For example, if on appeal, an appellate court allows new evidence to be introduced that sheds new light on the facts, appellate judges would be obliged to overturn an earlier ruling. In general, appellate courts limit their review to the conclusions of law, giving deference to the factual conclusions of the court.
Courts, however, will not apply procedural law doctrine when it would create an injustice. They will also review issues that would normally be considered resolved if there had been a change in law: a point of law invoked by the court was later overturned, or there has been a statutory change affecting the present case.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
