In our estimation, the cited cases have no bearing on our decision today. There is a separate and independent basis upon which we can be assured that we do have appellate jurisdiction with respect to the Bissonnette ruling of May 16, 2000. That second and independent basis is the fact that, on February 1, 2006 (the same date that the trial justice signed the “Final Judgment”), a separate order was signed by the trial justice. That order explicitly indicates that, in view of the law of the case doctrine, the trial justice considered himself to be bound by the Bisson-nette ruling y among American appellate courts as to the pragmatic approach to be taken with respect to the adequacy of a notice of appeal. See, e.g., Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 67 n.
holding that courts must construe pro se filings liberally holding that we construe the rules liberally and look only to the effect if the instruments request was granted holding that courts should liberally construe the requirements of rule 3 recognizing courts special duty to construe liberally a pro se plaintiffs pleadings recognizing that we construe pro se complaints liberally