was given the opportunity to do so. Cf. Sub-Zero Freezer Co. v. R.J. Clarkson Co., 308 S.C. 188, 191, 417 S.E.2d 569, 571 (1992) (indicating by analogy, “claims [that] were either litigat[ed] in the prior actions or could have been so litigated” may not be relitigated in a subsequent action). In this case, the court’s order, granting Morgan a divorce and finding the parties had one child, clearly “disposed of every issue in the case, directed judgment” and contained binding instructions for the parties. See Adickes, 21 S.C. at 259; Corbin, 351 S.C. at 621, 571 S.E.2d at 97. Because Neely never appealed the final decree it is the law of the case and cannot now be challenged or ignored. See ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 241, 489 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we find the divorce decree was a final
holding a trial judges unappealed procedural rulings become the law of the case holding that a ruling from a prior decision of this court becomes the law of the case that cannot be challenged in a later proceeding quotation marks omitted holding an unappealed ruling is the law of the case and cannot be later challenged holding that an exhaustion of appellate remedies is required to make a trial courts ruling the law of the case holding that an unappealed ruling right or wrong is the law of the case