Cited by

are not ordinarily reexamined in the same case upon a subsequent appeal.” Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 566 (2010) (quotation omitted) (emphasis added).

11 [¶24] The law of the case doctrine provides that “[q]uestions once decided on appeal to this court are not ordinarily reexamined in the same case upon a subsequent appeal.” Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 566 (2010) (quotation omitted).

is a ‘decision of the planning board’ from which an aggrieved party may appeal under” RSA 677:15, I, Sklar Realty v. Town of Merrimack, 125 N.H. 321, 327 (1984), superseded, in part, by statute, Laws 1986, 57:1; and (2) “a conditional approval imposing only conditions subsequent constitutes a final decision appealable under RSA 677:15, I.” Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 564 (2010).

Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 563-565 (2010) (noting that a conditional approval imposing only conditions subsequent constitutes a final decision appealable under RSA 677:15, I).

Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 566 (2010).

Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 566 (2010).

Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 566 (2010) (describing the law of the case doctrine); Perrault v. Town of New Hampton, 171 N.H. 183, 187-88 (2018) (describing the limited precedential value of plurality opinions).

Id.; accord Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 564 (2010).

Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 566, 8 A.3d 89 (2010).

Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 566 (2010).

Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 566 (2010) (explaining that questions explicitly decided or decided by necessary inference by this court constitute the law of the case and are not ordinarily reexamined in the same case upon a subsequent appeal); see also State v. Robinson, 170 N.H. 52, 60-61 (2017) (discussing the reach of the law of the case doctr

Under the law of the case doctrine, “only such issues as have actually been decided, either explicitly, or by necessary inference from the disposition [of the first appeal], constitute the law of the case.” Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 566 (2010) (quotation omitted).

B. Foundation I The Foundation argues that the trial court’s interpretation of Section 5.2.11(a) contravenes the “law of the case.” See Saunders v. Town of Kingston, 160 N.H. 560, 566 (2010) (“The question decided on the first appeal is known as the law of the case, and becomes binding precedent to be followed in successive stages of the same litigation.” (quotation omitted)).