ÿWPC| RkS2à E~2ñ™¦º£¼Ê%¥°$ó¢ÒCíµ>‡Ó˜¼'¢…dÅÊlCßËÏ÷ß².6Ä ÈãØ>¯×wæ¾!¹•>¥Ià¿X©eß\lq.P¤›­ÿ®M'ÉJá{+ÎVà-§ÝZ“‹gççH3“¡ÐóLôjNļ§¢=Ý5«Ïœ­GŒeÍŸ:1u½”ïÆ\á/‚­ ýÌï̽ËÚæ0¯cY$œ¡ÐˆúŸéŽIÐ ÒÁZôš–´4ºÁ@©aG v\7Ò17u˜ß/Ž>%:(>ŒGj›æy,öÊ„NçW†ð)‹;%¸» ×ã_RzˆøÞ‹<܆Uê¼´½´ÂG³uʃhó|P8ýMÍñÿs*“Í¥N‡5¢›xgz¬5Hy'‚sÄ‘?O“˜ÀTxÔý.gu„ö”]Ž´ÿ ¾QÜÐÈ¥—ábiМ„0¿AÚ Œ*a0T 1 £ñÚ®'\«]®fœ+Å.ÃÝánRÛR Wy¦å²ê«%!ën2™åЭx/E}+þh¢ËN³ x²#´åg-‚-áq¯¹…# F U:Q %‹ 04‘ 4Å Ù bè 0³ð 0D£ ç çï ÒÖ U:¨ w@â ç"U:                     BCCCCCC D3``` 0D““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““ AOׯ&& 0Dì D/0 B_˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó¥Hœ$tÔôÔô3|x—7- ù-(c(2 $¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ôh­ôXXÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÝÔ€ X—XXXÔÔ€ {X X—ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X—X {ÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€27,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó ÈÝ ƒÒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ôè¥ôXXÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€law€is€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„215„101€et€seq.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ‚7Dƒ7„7{…7†7U‡7Ó€‘7’7U“7U”7 ÝÔ€X—XXXÔÔ€{XX—ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X—X{ÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€31,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d$$$$'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñ‘7ñ›ñ‘7ñÑ, °ÑÑ` °ÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÑ7€—XXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€Ñò òÓ=€—XÐXdÐd=Óñ†7ññ†7ññ‡7ññ‡7ññ†7ññ†7ññ‘7ññ‡7ñßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@E»- ` 8ttxPó, ð  rßñ‡7ññ‘7ññ‘7ññ‘7ññ†7ññ†7ññ‘7ññ‘7ññ†7ññ†7ññ”7ññ‘7ñßt€ *>.*jx×ÿbü` `€€@E, ` 8ttxPÇ, ð tßñ‘7ññ”7ññ”7ñßt€*>.*jx×ÿbü` `€€@E, ` 8ttxPÇ, ð tßñ”7ññ†7ññ†7ññ’7ñÌñ’7ññ†7ñÌñ†7ññ‡7ñ›ñ‡7ññ†7ñÌñ†7ññ‡7ñ›ñ‡7ññ†7ñÌñ†7ñ›à@ž ž ÌàÔ‡¼>!¼XXÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ Ü ° Ðà@hh(ÌàAT€NASHVILLE€Ô#†X—X¼¼>!‚#Ôó óˆÐ ðÄ Мñ”7ñò òó óñ”7ññ‚7ññ7ñ\ñ7ññ‚7ñ›Ìœñ“7ñÌñ“7ñ›à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÐ ¶Š  ÐMEMPHIS€PUBLISHING€COMPANY,à  à)à è àÐ œp  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àœò òFiled:ó óñƒ7ñ€ñƒ7ññ„7ññƒ7ñAugustñƒ7ññ„7ññ„7ñAugustñ„7ññƒ7ñ€ñƒ7ññ…7ñ31,€1998ñ…7ñ›Ð ‚V  Ðà Ø àAppellee,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð nB  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àÐ T(  Ðv.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDAVIDSON€CHANCERYÐ :  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌTENNESSEE€PETROLEUMà 8 àà  à)à è àHon.€Irvin€H.€œKilcrease›,€Jr.,Ð Ú ÐUNDERGROUND€STORAGE€TANKà  à)à è àChancellorÐ ìÀ ÐBOARD,€AND€œJ.W.›€œLUNA›€ASà 8 àà  à)Ð Ò¦ ÐCOMMISSIONER€OF€THEà 8 àà  à)Ð ¸Œ ÐTENNESSEE€DEPARTMENT€OFà  à)Ð žr ÐENVIRONMENT€ANDà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð „X ÐCONSERVATION,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð j> Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àAppellants.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð 6  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ !ð Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€œ01S01›„9710„CH„00232Ð "Ö Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àòòà è àFor€the€Appelleeóó:à ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ´$ˆ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àÌJohn€Knox€Walkupà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àS.€Russell€œHeadrick›Ð €&T ÐAttorney€General€&€Reporterà 8 àà  àà è àStephen€P.€HaleÐ f':  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àMemphis,€TennesseeÌMichael€E.€Mooreà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àÐ 2)" ÐSolicitor€Generalà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àÐ *ì# Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àÌBarry€TurnerÌDeputy€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àÐ °-„#' ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ€„5„XX—Ôà@VV(ÌàO€P€I€N€I€O€NˆÐ Æ5š+0/ ЇÔ€X—X„„5ÔÌÌAFFIRMED.à 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àœDROWOTA›,€J.Ð  ø Ì ÐÓÓà Ø àThe€issue€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€applies€ñ~7ñœñ~7ñonÏremand€toñ~7ñ›ñ~7ñ€issues€implicitly€decided€by€an€intermediate€appellate€court€if€this€CourtÏdenied€permission€to€appeal€from€that€decision,€but€concurred€in€results€only.€€For€theÏreasons€that€follow,€we€hold€that€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€applies€to€all€issuesÏdecided€either€implicitly€or€explicitly€by€an€intermediate€appellate€court.€€This€Courtððs€Ïdenial€of€permission€to€appeal€with€concurrence€in€results€only€does€not€alter€thisÏlongstanding€rule.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Chancellor€and€theÏCourt€of€Appeals.ÌÌà@óó)Ìàò òòòBACKGROUNDóóó óˆÐ X, Ðà Ø àThis€case€is€on€appeal€for€the€second€time.€€The€first€appeal€arose€when€theÏplaintiff,€Memphis€Publishing€Company,€(hereinafter€ñ~7ñœñ~7ññ~7ñœñ~7ñMPCñ~7ñ›ñ~7ññ~7ñ›ñ~7ñ),€was€deniedÏreimbursement€for€remediation€expenses€incurred€as€a€result€of€an€August€1987Ïrelease€from€its€underground€storage€tank.€€The€Underground€Storage€Tank€FundÏfrom€which€MPC€sought€reimbursement€was€created€by€the€Tennessee€PetroleumÏUnderground€Storage€Tank€Act€of€1988.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Act€became€effective€on€July€1,€1988.€Ð ,% ÐIt€is€administered€by€the€defendants,€the€Tennessee€Petroleum€Underground€StorageÏTank€Board€and€J.W.€Luna,€as€Commissioner€of€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏEnvironment€and€Conservation.ÌÌà Ø àThough€MPC€discovered€and€reported€the€release€from€its€undergroundÏstorage€tank€prior€to€July€1,€1988,€the€majority€of€its€assessment€and€remediationÏefforts€occurred€after€that€date.€€MPC€filed€its€application€for€reimbursement€with€theÐ À1”', ÐBoard€on€September€1990.€€After€a€contested€case€hearing,€the€Board€denied€theÏapplication€by€a€final€decision€and€order.€€The€Board€stated€that€MPC€was€not€Ïeligible€for€reimbursement€from€the€Fund€because€the€release€had€occurred€prior€toÏJuly€1,€1988,€the€effective€date€of€the€Act€which€created€the€Fund.€The€BoardððsÏfinding€was€based€upon€an€April€1990€amendment€to€the€original€Act€which€stated:Ïð ð[i]t€is€the€intent€of€the€general€assembly€that€this€chapter€shall€not€apply€retroactivelyÏto€releases€or€other€events€that€occurred€prior€to€July€1,€1998.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ68„215„102(c)€(1996€Repl.).ÌÌà Ø àMPC€sought€judicial€review€requesting€that€the€Chancery€Court€declare€theÏ1990€amendment€unconstitutional€retrospective€legislation.€€The€Chancellor€affirmedÏthe€decision€of€the€Board€stating:ÌÌÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 à[MPC]€submits€that€it€had€a€vested€right€to€claim€reimbursementÏfrom€the€fund€established€by€the€UST€Act,€and€that€the€1990Ïamendment€impairs€this€right.€€The€provisions€of€the€Act€establishingÏthe€UST€Fund€create€new€substantive€rights,€and€cannot€beÏretroactively€applied.€€[citation€omitted.]€€The€provision€added€by€theÏ1990€amendment€simply€confirmed€and€ratified€the€original€intent€of€theÏGeneral€Assembly€that€the€UST€Act€is€not€to€be€given€retrospectiveÏapplication.€€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àIt€is€undisputed€that€MPC€discovered€and€reported€the€releaseÏfrom€its€underground€storage€tank€in€August€of€1987.€€The€DepartmentÏhas€consistently€followed€its€policy€of€using€the€date€of€the€discovery€ofÏthe€release€as€the€applicable€date€under€the€UST€Act.€€MPCððs€actionsÏtook€place€well€before€the€effective€date€of€the€UST€Act€on€July€1,Ï1988.€€This€Court€concludes€that€MPC€never€had€a€vested€right€to€claimÏreimbursement€from€the€fund€because€the€Act€does€not€apply€toÏreleases,€like€MPCððs€that€occurred€prior€to€the€July€1,€1988€effectiveÏdate€of€the€Act.€€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àÌÓtÓà Ø àMPC€appealed€from€the€Chancellorððs€ruling.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€concludedÏthat€at€the€time€the€Act€passed,€the€General€Assembly€had€intended€to€provideÐ L5 +0 Ðreimbursement€from€the€Fund€for€ð ðall€releases€regardless€of€date.ðð€€Specifically,€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€stated€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 Ø àà 0 àMPC€presents€the€following€issue€for€our€consideration:ÏððWhether€the€trial€court€erred€in€holding€that€MPC€had€no€right€toÏreimbursement€from€the€Fund€under€the€Original€Act,ðð€which€becameÏeffective€1€July€1988....Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà@ÜÜ+Ìà*€*€*€*ˆÌÌà8 Ø àà 0 àWe€find€nothing€in€the€sweeping€nature€of€the€perceivedÏproblems€addressed€by€the€Original€Act,€the€description€of€theÏcomprehensive€regulatory€mechanism,€nor€the€description€of€the€broadÏpurposes€of€the€Fund,€to€suggest€or€imply€any€date€limitation€on€theÏððreleasesðð€covered€under€the€Original€Act.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà@ÜÜ+Ìà*€*€*€*ˆÌÌà8 Ø àà 0 àBoth€the€Board€and€the€Chancellor,€in€determining€that€MPC€wasÏnot€entitled€to€recover,€relied€on€the€1990€Amendment€which€set€forthÏthe€general€assemblyððs€ððintentðð€to€restrict€recovery€to€releases€or€otherÏevents€which€occurred€after€1€July€1988.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àWhile€a€later€general€assemblyððs€understanding€of€what€an€ActÏintended€is€not€binding,€it€is€entitled€to€deference.€€LegislativeÏinterpretation€of€a€prior€statute€is€entitled€to€respectful€consideration,Ïbut€is€not€controlling€on€the€courts.€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àFollowing€the€fundamental€rule€of€statutory€construction,€thisÏcourt€must€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€intention€or€purpose€of€theÏlegislature€as€expressed€in€the€statute.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€legislature€intended€to€cover€allÏreleases€without€regard€to€the€date€on€which€they€may€have€occurred.€ÏÐ Ø À!Ø À! Ðà@ÜÜ+Ìà*€*€*€*à@@ÌÌ.ÌàˆÌà8 Ø àà 0 àThe€Original€Act€was€intended€to€cover,€from€a€FundÏreimbursement€perspective,€all€releases€regardless€of€date.€.€.€.€€ThisÏissue€is€sustained.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àà 0 àBecause€of€our€holding€regarding€this€issue,€we€pretermit€allÏother€issues€raised€by€MPC.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€in€affirmingÏthe€decision€of€the€Board€and€Commissioner€is€reversed€and€the€causeÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further,€necessary€proceedings.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓj!Óà Ø àÐ f4:*/ Ð(Internal€citations€omitted.)ÌÌà Ø àThereafter,€the€defendants€filed€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€fromÏthe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€This€Court€denied€the€application,€concurringÏin€results€only.€€The€mandate€issued,€and€the€case€returned€to€the€trial€court€forÏfurther€proceedings.ÌÌà Ø àIn€the€trial€court,€the€defendants€again€contended€that€MPC€had€no€right€toÏreimbursement€from€the€Fund€because€of€the€1990€amendment€to€the€Act.€€InÏcontrast,€MPC€asserted€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€opinion€established€the€law€of€theÏcase€on€remand.€€The€Chancellor€agreed,€stating€ð ð[t]he€decision€of€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€makes€it€clear€that€the€petitionerððs€release€is€to€be€covered€regardless€of€theÏdate€on€which€the€release€occurred.€€The€Supreme€Courtððs€concurrence€ððin€resultsÏonlyðð€does€not€change€this€fact.ððÌÌà Ø àThe€defendants€appealed,€arguing€that€when€this€Court€denies€permission€toÏappeal€with€concurrence€in€results€only,€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€ñ~7ñœñ~7ñapplies€onÏremandñ~7ñ›ñ~7ñ€only€to€issues€which€were€explicitly€addressed€by€the€intermediate€appellateÏcourt€decision.€The€Court€of€Appeals€rejected€this€argument€and€affirmed€theÏChancellorððs€decision.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€permission€to€appeal€to€considerÏwhether€this€Courtððs€denial€€of€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€withÏconcurrence€in€results€only€precludes€application€of€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€ñ~7ñœñ~7ñonÏremand€toñ~7ñ›ñ~7ñ€issues€implicitly€resolved€by€the€intermediate€appellate€court€decision.€€ForÏthe€reasons€that€follow,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals.Ìò òòòÐ  L5 +0 Ðà@  "ÌàLAW€OF€THE€CASE€DOCTRINEóóó óˆÐ ,  Ðà Ø àThe€phrase€ð ðlaw€of€the€caseðð€refers€to€a€legal€doctrine€which€generally€prohibitsÏreconsideration€of€issues€that€have€already€been€decided€in€a€prior€appeal€of€theÏsame€case.€€5€Am.Jur.2d€òòAppellate€Reviewóó€ðð€605€(1995).€€In€other€words,€under€theÐ œp Ðlaw€of€the€case€doctrine,€an€appellate€courtððs€decision€on€an€issue€of€law€is€bindingÏin€later€trials€and€appeals€of€the€same€case€if€the€facts€on€the€second€trial€or€appealÏare€substantially€the€same€as€the€facts€in€the€first€trial€or€appeal.€€òòLife€&€Casualty€Ins.Ð Ô  ÐCo.€v.€Jettóó,€175€Tenn.€295,€299,€133€S.W.2d€997,€998„99€(1939);€òòLadd€v.€HondaÐ Ì   ÐMotor€Co.,€Ltd.óó,€939€S.W.2d€83,€90€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€€€The€doctrine€applies€toÐ ˜l Ðissues€that€were€actually€before€the€appellate€court€in€the€first€appeal€and€to€issuesÏthat€were€necessarily€decided€by€implication.€€òòLaddóó,€939€S.W.2d€at€90€(citing€otherÐ 0 Ðauthority).€€The€doctrine€does€not€apply€to€dicta.€€€òòRidley€v.€Haimanóó,€164€Tenn.€239,Ð üÐ Ð248„49,€47€S.W.2d€750,€752„53€(1932);€òòLaddóó,€939€S.W.2d€at€90.Ð Èœ ÐÌà Ø àThe€law€of€the€case€doctrine€is€not€a€constitutional€mandate€nor€a€limitation€onÏthe€power€of€a€court.€€5€Am.€Jur.2d€òòAppellate€Reviewóó€ðð€605€(1995);€òòLaddóó,€939Ð ,% ÐS.W.2d€at€90.€€Rather,€it€is€a€longstanding€discretionary€rule€of€judicial€practice€whichÏis€based€on€the€common€sense€recognition€that€issues€previously€litigated€andÏdecided€by€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€ordinarily€need€not€be€revisited.€€òòLaddóó,Ð *d $ Ð939€S.W.2d€at€90€(citing€other€cases).€€This€rule€promotes€the€finality€and€efficiencyÏof€the€judicial€process,€avoids€indefinite€relitigation€of€the€same€issue,€fostersÏconsistent€results€in€the€same€litigation,€and€assures€the€obedience€of€lower€courtsÏto€the€decisions€of€appellate€courts.€€òòLaddóó,€939€S.W.2d€at€90;€5€Am.Jur.2d€òòAppellateÐ À1”', ÐReviewóó€ðð€605€(1995);€1B€James€W.€Moore,€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð€0.404[1]€(2dÐ Œ3`). Ðed.€1995);€18€Charles€A.€Wright,€Arthur€R.€Miller€&€Edward€H.€Cooper,€òòFederalÐ X5,+0 ÐPractice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€4478,€at€790€(1981).Ð ,  ÐÌà Ø àTherefore,€when€an€initial€appeal€results€in€a€remand€to€the€trial€court,€theÏdecision€of€the€appellate€court€establishes€the€law€of€the€case€which€generally€mustÏbe€followed€upon€remand€by€the€trial€court,€and€by€an€appellate€court€if€a€secondÏappeal€is€taken€from€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€entered€after€remand.€€Miller,Ïòòsupraóó,€ðð€0.404[1].€There€are€limited€circumstances€which€may€justify€reconsiderationÐ ôÈ  Ðof€an€issue€which€was€issue€decided€in€a€prior€appeal:€(1)€the€evidence€offered€at€aÏtrial€or€hearing€after€remand€was€substantially€different€from€the€evidence€in€the€initialÏproceeding;€(2)€the€prior€ruling€was€clearly€erroneous€and€would€result€in€a€manifestÏinjustice€if€allowed€to€stand;€or€(3)€the€prior€decision€is€contrary€to€a€change€in€theÏcontrolling€law€which€has€occurred€between€the€first€and€second€appeal.€€òòSeeóóÐ ðÄ Ðòògenerallyóó€5€Am.Jur.2d€òòAppellate€Reviewóó€ðððð€611„613€(1995€&€1998€Supp.);€Miller,Ð ¼ Ðòòsupraóó,€ðð€0.404[1];€Wright,€et€al.,€supra,€ðð€4478,€at€790;€òòseeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòJettóó,€175€Tenn.€atÐ ˆ!\ Ð299,€133€S.W.2d€at€€999€(ð ðThe€former€opinion€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€was€the€lawÏof€the€case€on€the€second€trial,€and€the€evidence€being€the€same,€the€circuit€judgeÏcould€not€have€done€otherwise€than€to€submit€this€issue€of€sound€health€to€theÏjury....);€òòClingan€v.€Vulcan€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€694€S.W.2d€327€(Tenn.€App.€1985)€(TheÐ ¸(Œ" Ðinitial€appeal€did€not€establish€the€law€of€the€case€because€the€facts€in€the€secondÏappeal€were€not€substantially€the€same€as€the€facts€in€the€prior€appeal);€òòArizona€v.Ð P,$"& ÐCaliforniaóó,€460€U.S.€605,€618,€n.€8,€103€S.Ct.€1382,€1391,€n.€8,€75€L.Ed.2d€318Ð .ð#( Ð(1983)€(The€doctrine€does€not€apply€if€the€court€is€ð ðconvinced€that€[its€prior€decision]Ïis€clearly€erroneous€and€would€work€a€manifest€injustice.ðð);€òòSherley€v.Ð ´1ˆ', ÐCommonwealthóó,€889€S.W.2d€794,€798€(Ky.€1994)€(The€law€of€the€case€doctrine€doesÐ €3T). Ðnot€apply€where€there€has€been€an€intervening€change€of€controlling€authority.)Ð L5 +0 Їà Ø àHaving€outlined€the€parameters€of€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine,€we€must€nextÏconsider€the€defendantsðð€contention€that€the€doctrine€should€not€apply€to€issuesÏimplicitly€resolved€by€an€intermediate€appellate€court€decision€which€this€CourtÏdeclined€to€review€with€concurrence€in€results€only.ÌÌà Ø àWe€have€previously€stated€that,€when€we€deny€discretionary€review,€this€CourtÏis€not€ñ~7ñœñ~7ñnecessarily€committedñ~7ñ›ñ~7ñ€to€all€the€views€expressed€in€the€opinion€of€theÏintermediate€appellate€court.€€òòMeadows€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€752€(Tenn.€1993);Ð À”  ÐòòAdams€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€553,€556€(Tenn.€1977);€òòStreet€v.€Calvertóó,€541€S.W.2dÐ Œ` Ð576,€587€(Tenn.€1976);€òòBryan€v.€Aetna€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€174€Tenn.€602,€611,€130€S.W.2dÐ X, Ð85,€88òò€óó(1939).€€We€discussed€in€òòMeadowsóó€the€practical€reasons€for€this€rule.Ð $ø ÐÌ€à Ø àThis€Courtððs€use€of€the€denial€with€concurrence€in€results€only€designation€hasÐ À” Ðbeen€founded€upon€similar€€considerations.€€For€example,€simply€because€of€theÏsheer€volume€of€applications€for€appeal,€this€Court€does€not€have€the€ability€to€grantÏreview€and€write€an€opinion€in€every€case€in€which€it€disagrees€with€some€portion€ofÏthe€intermediate€appellate€court€decision.€€In€addition,€the€problematic€portion€of€theÏintermediate€appellate€decision€is€not€always€raised€as€an€issue€by€the€parties€in€theirÏapplications€for€review.€€Occasionally,€the€issue€is€raised,€but€the€record€is€deficient.€ÏOn€other€occasions,€the€troubling€rationale€of€the€intermediate€appellate€court€relatesÏto€a€well„settled€area€of€the€law,€so€there€is€no€need€for€another€decision€of€thisÏCourt.€€In€all€these€circumstances€our€ability€to€deny€review€with€concurrence€inÏresults€only€precludes€publication€of€the€intermediate€appellate€court€decision,Ïòòñ~7ñœñ~7ññ~7ñœñ~7ñPairamoreñ~7ñ›ñ~7ññ~7ñ›ñ~7ñ€v.€ñ~7ñœñ~7ññ~7ñœñ~7ñPairamoreñ~7ñ›ñ~7ññ~7ñ›ñ~7ñóó,€547€ñ~7ñœñ~7ññ~7ñœñ~7ñS.W.2dñ~7ñ›ñ~7ññ~7ñ›ñ~7ñ€545,€548€(Tenn.€1977);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Rule€4.4,Ð „3X). ÐRules€of€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€€€This€designation€also€alerts€the€bench€and€the€bar€that€thisÐ P5$+0 ÐCourt€disagrees€with€some€aspect€of€the€intermediate€appellate€court€decision.€ÏConsequently,€this€designation€has€been€an€important€tool€which€has€enabled€thisÏCourt€to€efficiently€utilize€the€judicial€resources€at€its€disposal€and€to€carefullyÏsupervise€the€jurisprudence€in€this€State.ÌÌà Ø àHowever,€this€Courtððs€denial€of€review€with€concurrence€in€results€only€doesÏnot€lessen€the€application€of€the€law€of€the€case€doctrine€with€respect€to€issues€whichÏwere€explicitly€or€implicitly€resolved€by€the€€intermediate€appellate€court€decision.€€ToÏthe€contrary,€generally€such€a€denial€reflects€this€Courtððs€specific€conclusion€that€theÏintermediate€appellate€court€reached€the€correct€result,€although€we€may€disagreeÏwith€a€portion€of€the€underlying€rationale.€€Therefore,€an€intermediate€appellate€courtÏdecision€constitutes€the€law€of€the€case€with€regard€to€the€parties€involved€in€the€caseÏdespite€this€Courtððs€denial€of€review€by€concurrence€in€results€only.€€òòLaddóó,€939Ð ¼ Ðñ~7ñœñ~7ññ~7ñœñ~7ñS.W.2dñ~7ñ›ñ~7ññ~7ñ›ñ~7ñ€at€91;€òòPatton€v.€ñ~7ñœñ~7ññ~7ñœñ~7ñMcHoneñ~7ñ›ñ~7ññ~7ñ›ñ~7ñóó,€822€S.W.2d€608,€615,€n.10€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€Ð ˆ!\ ÐÌà@,,)Ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ  %ô Ðà Ø àApplying€these€principles€to€the€facts€in€this€appeal,€we€hold€that€the€decisionÏof€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€the€first€appeal€of€this€case€is€controlling€as€the€law€of€theÏcase€despite€this€Courtððs€denial€of€review€with€concurrence€in€results€only.€€There€areÏno€grounds€which€justify€reconsideration€of€the€issue.€€The€evidence€offered€followingÏthe€remand€was€substantially€the€same€as€in€the€initial€proceeding.€€The€prior€rulingÏwas€not€clearly€erroneous,€and€there€has€been€no€change€in€the€controlling€lawÏbetween€the€first€and€second€appeal.€€The€effect€of€the€1990€amendment€on€MPCððsÏright€to€reimbursement€from€the€Fund€was€at€issue€in€the€initial€trial€and€appellateÏproceedings€as€is€evident€from€the€decisions€of€both€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€ofÐ X5,+0 ÐAppeals.€€Although€implicitly€decided,€a€determination€of€this€issue€was€necessaryÏand€essential€to€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€which€reversed€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment.€€This€Courtððs€denial€of€review€with€concurrence€in€results€only€does€notÏabrogate€the€law€of€the€case€effect€of€that€decision.ÌÌà Ø àConsequently,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€which€upheld€the€ÏChancellorððs€finding€that€the€law€of€the€case,€as€established€by€the€initial€decision€ofÏthe€Court€of€Appeals,€ð ðmakes€it€clear€that€the€petitionerððs€release€is€to€be€coveredÏregardless€of€the€date€on€which€the€release€occurred.ðð€€This€cause€is€remanded€toÏthe€Chancery€Court€with€instructions€that€the€matter€be€remanded€to€the€TennesseeÏPetroleum€Underground€Storage€Tank€Board€for€a€determination€of€theÏreasonableness€and€necessity€of€the€remediation€expenses€claimed€by€MemphisÏPublishing€Company.€ÌÓÓÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àFRANK€F.€ñ~7ñœñ~7ññ~7ñœñ~7ñDROWOTAñ~7ñ›ñ~7ññ~7ñ›ñ~7ñ,€III,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àJUSTICEÌÌÌñ~7ñœñ~7ñò òñ|7ñPanelñ|7ññ}7ñConcurñ}7ñ:ó óñ~7ñ›ñ~7ñÐ Ò'¦! ÐAnderson,€C.J.ÌBirch,€Holder,€Barker,€JJ.ÌÓ~WÓÌÌ