MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00193-CV
Larry C. NAIL,
Appellant
v.
Rick GODWIN and Eagle’s Nest Christian Fellowship Church, Inc.,
n/k/a Summit Christian Center,
Appellees
From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008-CI-08066
Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 20, 2010
AFFIRMED
Larry Nail appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against Eagle’s Nest Christian Fellowship
Church, Inc., n/k/a Summit Christian Center (“ENCF”) and its senior pastor Rick Godwin. The
dismissal order at issue, however, was entered in compliance with this court’s own order in In re
Godwin, 293 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, orig. proceeding). In that original
proceeding, we considered whether the trial court should have refrained from exercising
jurisdiction over Nail’s claims because each claim implicated church governance and discipline.
04-10-00193-CV
Id. at 750. Based on our analysis, we conditionally granted ENCF’s petition for writ of
mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the underlying lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction
based upon the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Id. The trial court complied with our order.
We now have before us the exact same case on appeal, except with a judgment of dismissal. In
two issues, Nail argues our prior decision was wrong and should be overruled. We disagree.
Generally, a court of appeals is bound by its initial decision if there is a subsequent
appeal in the same case. Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex. 2003) (under
the law of the case doctrine, a question of law decided by an appellate court governs the case
throughout its subsequent stages of litigation); Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex.
1986) (“The doctrine is based on public policy and is aimed at putting an end to litigation.”).
Thus, in a subsequent appeal, instructions given to a trial court in the first appeal will ordinarily
be enforced. Wall v. Wall, 143 Tex. 418, 186 S.W.2d 57, 58 (1945). However, a court of
appeals may re-visit its original decision when the appellate court concludes, on the second
appeal, that its original decision was “clearly erroneous.” Briscoe, 102 S.W.3d at 716-17. We
find no such error. Here, the record before the court has not changed. The parties and issues are
the same. No new evidence has been developed, no new law has been decided, and Nail asserts
no new arguments. Cf. id. at 717 (court has some discretion to revisit a prior decision if clearly
erroneous or based on an incomplete record); In re Estate of Chavana, 993 S.W.2d 311, 315
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (dicta in prior decision reversing and remanding case to
trial court without instructions was called into question by intervening and controlling higher
court decision). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Nail’s lawsuit.
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
-2-