【辭典】已決判決 res judicata （Law of the Case）

已決判決 res judicata
或 一事不再理。在法律上，指已經確定判決了的事情。該術語常被用來指這樣一項準則，即對已決爭議反覆重新審查不符合社會利益。長期以來人們一直認為：對一項 特定的權利要求或辯護，訴訟雙方當事人有一次經過爭訟的審判就足夠了。隨著審判工作量的增加，更迫切要求對訴訟雙方當事人進行限制，只准許他們對一次爭議 進行一次爭訟。由於法院工作的改進，已決事件的概念在範圍和權限方面都已有所擴大。

The Toro Company v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., et al.

Law of the Case（既判案例）

The doctrine of law of the case was “created to ensure judicial efficiency and to prevent the possibility of endless litigation.” Cent. Soya Co. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 723 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 (1912) (law of the case doctrine “expresses the practice of the courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided”); Roberts v. Cooper, 61 U.S. 467, 481 (1857) (“[T]here would be no end to a suit if every obstinate litigant could, by repeated appeals, compel a court to listen to criticisms on their opinions, or speculate of chances from changes of its members.”); United States v. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, 612 F.2d 517, 520 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (“No litigant deserves an opportunity to go over the same ground twice, hoping that the passage of time or changes in the composition of the court will provide a more favorable result the second time.”). Further,

[i]f the law-of-the-case doctrine is to have any substance, it must sometimes require a judge to uphold a ruling on a question that the judge would decide the other way if it were presented for the first time. In order to serve the interests of judicial economy, finality, and avoidance of “panel-shopping,” the doctrine strongly discourages reconsideration of issues that a previous panel has addressed, fully considered, and decided.

Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 86 F.3d 1566, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Bryson, J., concurring) (citing Roberts, 61 U.S. at 481; Central Soya, 723 F.2d at 1580). The law of the case doctrine is limited to issues that were actually decided, either explicitly or by necessary implication, in the earlier litigation. See, e.g., Alpha/Omega Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 272 F.3d 276, 279 (5th Cir. 2001).