liability....” In re W.R. Grace & Co., 2008 WL 3522453, at *5. Also, contrary to what Appellants argue, Gerard is not the law of the case. At the most basic level, Gerard did not involve the same parties and issues, as is required for application of the law of the case doctrine. See Pub. Interest Research Group of N.J., Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron, Inc., 123 F.3d 111, 116 (3d Cir.1997) (“The law of the case doctrine directs courts to refrain from re-deciding issues that were resolved earlier in the litigation.”) In addition, our decision in Combustion Engineering was rendered after Gerard and thus constitutes supervening legal authority. Id. (recognizing that “supervening new law” is an exception to the law of the case doctrine); cf. Baca v. King, 92 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Gerard is not the law of the case,
holding law of case doctrine is not absolute rule that must be inexorably followed in every case holding that the law of the case doctrine is not a fixed rule that prevents a federal court from determining the question of its own subject matter jurisdiction in a given case holding that a federal court is obliged to determine its own jurisdiction for each case holding law of case doctrine is procedural and does not go to jurisdiction of court holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court