opinion: ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. CHANCE.
  No. 6414.
  United iStates Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
  Decided July 18, 1952.
  Writ of Certiorari Denied Nov. 10, 3332.
  See 73 S.Ct. 172.
  J. M. Townsend, Petersburg, Va. (Collins, Denny, Jr., and Denny, Valentine & Davenport, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellant.
  Hill, Martin & Robinson, Richmond, Va., on brief, for appellee.
  Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  This is the second appeal in the case which was before us in Chance v. Lambeth, 4 Cir., 186 F.2d 879, certiorari denied Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Chance, 341 U.S. 941, 71 S.Ct. 1001, 95 L.Ed. 1367, and presents for our consideration no question not fully considered and passed upon in that appeal. Under well settled principles, the law as there laid down became the law of the case which governs in subsequent appeals. While the court has power on a subsequent appeal to reverse a former decision in the same case, this is a power which will be exercised only under the most unusual circumstances, as where the Supreme Court of the United States has decided the same matter differently during the interim, or where, in a case involving the interpretation of state law, the supreme court of the state whose law is involved has rendered a decision in conflict with the former decision. Maryland Casualty Co. v. City of South Norfolk, 4 Cir., 54 F.2d 1032, 1033, 1039; Thompson v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 168 U.S. 451, 456, 18 S.Ct. 121, 42 L.Ed. 539. No such circumstances are presented here, and appellant may not use this appeal as a means of reviewing our decision on the former appeal which was followed by the trial judge in the new trial there granted.
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".