the doctrine of law of the case, we may not review the district court’s judgment for McFatridge. It asserts that because White Mountains voluntarily dismissed its appeal against McFatridge and Edgar County, the part of the district court’s judgment as to these two parties must stand as we adjudicate the dispute between White Mountains and National Casualty, lest the district court be required to enter a judgment that is “impermissibly inconsistent” on remand. But that is incorrect. While the doctrine of the law of the case “creates a presumption against a court’s reexamining its own rulings in the course of a litigation ... [i]t has no application to the review of rulings by a higher court.” Marseilles Hydro Power LLC v. Marseilles Land & Water Co., 481 F.3d 1002, 1004 (7th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, we have repeatedly held that “[t]he
holding that entry of judgment in the underlying litigation does not moot an appeal from a denial of a motion to intervene if one of the parties keeps the underlying litigation live by pursuing an appeal holding that a district court judgment regarding a party that settled out of the case could not prejudice the remaining parties in the litigation on appeal holding that because parties elected to bring the case to the appellate court in the first instance the appeal could not then be dismissed just to confer jurisdiction upon the district court to determine the issues holding that when the district court dismissed rather than transferred a case not within its jurisdiction and a party appealed that dismissal the circuit court could consider only the propriety of the dismissal on appeal and determining that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction on appeal to consider the merits of the action holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court