were not legally entitled to lost profits. We will address each of these contentions in turn. A. The Serletics first assert that the law of the case doctrine required the trial judge entering the award of damages to follow a previous judge’s ruling concerning the measurement of damages. However, their understanding of the law of the case doctrine is incorrect. • Generally, until a judgment is entered, a trial court can amend, modify or change an earlier decision. Wisconics Engineering, Inc. v. Fisher, 466 N.E.2d 745, 752 (Ind.Ct.App.1984), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Our supreme court has held: “It often happens that the-judge who originally has jurisdiction.-is required to rule upon a question of law, presented by demurrer or other pleading, and that 5 F.3d 155, 160 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1103, 115 S.Ct. 2248,
holding that an exhaustion of appellate remedies is required to make a trial courts ruling the law of the case recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to  1983 holding that an unappealed ruling is the law of the case holding that courts have consistently required exhaustion of administrative remedies under foia recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different