by necessary implication that the waters immediately west of northern Whidbey Island are a part of the Lummi’s U & A. Thus, each of Lummi Indian Tribe’s two holdings implies a different result. Therefore, we conclude that Lum-mi Indian Tribe is ambiguous regarding whether the waters immediately to the west of northern Whidbey Island are included within the Lummi U & A, and accordingly that this issue has not yet been decided explicitly or by necessary implication. The law of the case doctrine applies only when the issue was “decided explicitly or by necessary implication in the previous disposition.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see United Steelworkers of Am. v. Ret. Income Plan For Hourly-Rated Employees of ASARCO, Inc., 512 F.3d 555, 564 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). We hold that no prior decision in this case
holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court holding that where the district court decided two issues in the certified order but identified only the damages issue as the controlling question of law the court of appeals could nonetheless address the other issue holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court recognizing the issue may be decided as a question of law if the facts are undisputed and support only one inference holding that law of the case acts as a bar only when the issue in question was actually considered and decided by the first court