upon a change of judge, the same questions are' presented during the trial. The ruling of the original judge does not become the law of the case so as to bind the judge who, later has jurisdiction, nor in passing upon the question when again presented, does he review the ruling of the former judge. His authority and his duty require that he exercise his judicial discretion as though the matter were presented for the first time.” State ex rel. Williams Coal Co. v. Duncan, 211 Ind. 203, 207, 6 N.E.2d 342, 343-344 (1937). Under the law of the case doctrine, a trial court is not bound by its own earlier rulings unless they have been adopted by an appellate court’s decision. Howard D. Johnson Co. v. Parkside Development Corp., 169 Ind.App. 379, 383, 348 N.E.2d 656, 659-660 (1976) (<HOLDING>); see also Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp.,
holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal holding that the law of the case doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case holding that a judgment on appeal constitutes the law of the case as to particular issues decided and is applicable throughout subsequent stages of the case holding that under the law of the case doctrine an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal recognizing in a takings case that issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be decided on motion for summary judgment