Additionally, the law o tating law of case doctrine is not absolute mandate); State v. Jefferson, 31 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tenn.2000) (noting law of case doctrine is “discretionary rule of judicial practice”); State v. Presler, 731 A.2d 699, 703 (R.I.1999) (noting law of case “does not have the finality of res judicata”); Zawodniak v. State, 339 Ark. 66, 3 S.W.3d 292, 294 (1999) (stating law of case doctrine is not inflexible and does not absolutely preclude error); Sherley v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 794, 797 (Ky.1994) (indicating courts “are not absolutely bound by law of case doctrine and may exercise discretion in its application”); People v. Stanley, 10 Cal.4th 764, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 543, 897 P.2d 481, 492-93 (1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1208, 116 S.Ct. 1825, 134 L.Ed.2d 930 (1996) (<HOLDING>); People v. Herrera, 204 Mich.App. 333, 514
holding that under alabama law the law of the forum applies to procedural matters and that in most instances the statute of limitations is considered to be a procedural rule holding that court may not impose procedural requirements on agency decisionmaking that go beyond those of the administrative procedure act holding that jurisdiction must be resolved before applying the act of state doctrine because that doctrine is a substantive rule of law 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 law of case doctrine is procedural and does not go to jurisdiction of court