{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f180\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192; \red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{ \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid14683743 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid14683743 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1855293\rsid9452664\rsid9508377\rsid12077109\rsid13989402\rsid14683743}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info {\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min4}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr14\min53}{\version5}{\edmins2}{\nofpages10}{\nofwords3718}{\nofchars21193}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam} {\nofcharsws24862}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120 \dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot13989402 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \insrsid13989402 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13989402 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13989402 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13989402 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid13989402\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid13989402 Haeuser v. Dept. of Law}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 , Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid13989402 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1855293 10}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 of 15 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13989402 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-9\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid1855293 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom9\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize9\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13989402 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\keep\keepn\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ALAN HAEUSER,}{\b\insrsid14683743\charrsid1855293 \par }{\v\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 GUAM BAR ETHICS COMMITTEE}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Petitioner-Appellant \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 vs. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\keep\keepn\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, and the \par CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF GUAM}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par Respondents-Appellees}{\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\keep\keepn\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\keep\keepn\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 OPINION}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\v\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 DRAFT OPINION}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Supreme Court Case No.:CVA00-21}{\v\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Supreme Court Case No.:CVA00\_011}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Superior Court Case No.:SP0003-92}{\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid1855293 }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 2002 Guam 8}{\b\insrsid1855293 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Filed:}{\b\insrsid1855293 }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 June 27, 2002}{\b\insrsid1855293 \par \par }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on Dec. 4, 2001 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid1855293 \par \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\ul\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Appearing for Petitioner-Appellant}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 : \par Mitchell F. Thompson, Esq. \par Maher & Thompson, P.C. \par 140 Aspinall Avenue, Suite 201 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell \par }{\ul\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Appearing for Respondents-Appellees}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 : \par Eric A. Heisel\tab \tab \tab \tab \par Assistant Attorney General\tab \par Office of the Attorney General \par Suite 2-200E, Judicial Center Building \par 120 West O}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Brien Drive \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf8 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid1855293 \par }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 BEFORE:}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; MICHAEL J. BORDALLO, Justice }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Pro Tempore}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 .}{\insrsid1855293 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 CARBULLIDO, J.:}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [1]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab This case originated from Petitioner-Appellant Alan Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s (hereinafter }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ) termination from the Guam Department of Law (hereinafter }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 DOL}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ) and is before us for the second time on appeal.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The first appeal resulted in a published opinion by this court, }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser v. Department of Law, Government of Guam and the Civil Service Commission of Guam}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 1999 Guam 12, (hereinafter }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ), wherein we reversed the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s finding that Haeuser reasonably mitigated his damages and affirmed the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s denial of the Government}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s trial motion to compel the production of Haeuser}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s tax returns.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The gravaman of this second appeal is the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s application on remand of the }{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Mandate (hereinafter }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Mandate}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ) with respect to the issue of whether Haeuser was entitled to an award of back pay.}{ \insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 We affirm the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s denial of back pay award to Haeuser based on the Mandate. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 I.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [2]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab Haeuser was hired as an Assistant Attorney General, an unclassified position, with DOL on February 1990 for a probationary term of two years.}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 On April 1, 1991, DOL terminated Haeuser from employment.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission of Guam (hereinafter }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Commission}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The Commission dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Haeuser was an unclassified employee under Title 4 GCA } {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 6208.1.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13989402 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 Title 4 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 6208.1 provides: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13989402 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13989402 Not-withstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney General may hire Assistant Attorneys General necessary for the operation of the department. Attorneys shall be hired for an initial two-year probationary period in the unclassified service, which shall by the term of the appointment e xpire two years from the date of the appointment if not sooner terminated by the appointing authority. Attorneys reappointed after completion of their probationary period shall be employed in the unclassified service as provided under Section 4102(16) of Chapter 4 of this Title and may be removed only for cause. Attorneys presently in the classified service shall remain classified. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13989402 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13989402 Title 4 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 6208.1 (1998).}}}{ \insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [3]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab Shortly thereafter, Haeuser petitioned for a writ of mandate from the Superior Court of Guam, alleging that 4 GCA }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 6208.1 violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Organic Act.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 After hearing the matter, the Superior Court found no equal protection violation, but did not explicitly address the Organic Act violation.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser appealed the ruling to the Appellate Division of the District Court, which affirmed the Superior Court findings and held that there was no violation of the Organic Act. \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [4]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab Haeuser filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit challenging only the Appellate Divisions}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 findings with respect to the Organic Act violation. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Haeuser and held that the statute exemp ting Assistant Attorneys General from the merit protections of classified service violated the Organic Act.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate to the Appellate Division, which in turn issued a mandate to the Superior Court. \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [5]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab Upon remand to the Superior Court, Haeuser filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The trial court granted the Motion and ordered the Government to reinstate Haeuser as an Assistant Attorney General.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser returned to work for DOL on June 24, 1997, and is currently a full-time c}{ \insrsid1855293 lassified employee.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [6]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab A trial was held in early October 1997 regarding the issues of back pay and mitigation. The Superior Court awarded back pay to Haeuser, with a setoff for money earned and for failure to mitigate.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The Government filed a Motion to make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, which was subsequently denied by the trial court.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The Government also filed a Motion to compel production of Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s tax returns, which wa s similarly denied by the trial court.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Consequently, the Government appealed the award of back pay and the denial of the Government's Motion to compel production of documents.}{\insrsid13989402 \par }{\insrsid1855293\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [7]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab In }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , this court reversed the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s finding that Haeuser had reasonably mitigated his damages and affirmed the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s denial of the Government}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Motion to compel the production of Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s tax returns.}{ \insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 A Mandate pursuant to }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 was filed on June 10, 1999 and provided in pertinent part: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, it is now hereby ordered and adjudged by this court that the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s finding that Haeuser had reasonably mitigated his damages, is }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 REVERSED}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 and }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 REMANDED}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 for findings consistent with this opinion. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [8]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab The trial court issued a Decision and Order on April 27, 2000 in accordance with the Mandate.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In that Decision and Order, the trial court expressed concerns in ascertaining the precise meaning of the Mandate as reflected in the following: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 After having reviewed the high Court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Opinion in this regard several times, this Court }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 remains somewhat uncertain}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 of the meaning of the Supreme Court}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s mandate, and further is uncertain as how, exactly, to proceed in this matter.}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 (emphasis added) \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par Despite such concerns, the trial court reversed its prior award of back pay to Haeuser.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In its analysis, the trial court reduced Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s back pay damage to reflect the periods within which he did not reasonably mitigate his damages.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Applying the analysis in }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , wherein this court found that Haeuser did not reasonably mitigate his damages because he failed to apply for any j ob in the private sector, the trial court examined each of the six years that Haeuser was unlawfully terminated from his job.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Because it did not find that Haeuser applied for a private sector job in any of those six years, the trial court determined that Haeuser failed to mitigate his damages in each of those years; and thus was not entitled to any back pay.}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [9]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab On May 10, 2000, Haeuser then filed a Motion for a New Trial in Superior Court, which was denied on July 31, 2000.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser filed a timely notice of appeal with this court on August 30, 2000, appealing both the Superior Court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s denial of a new trial and the underlying judgment.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 This second appeal focuses on the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s reversal of its prior award of back pay to Haeuser in light of this court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Mandate. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 II.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [10]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab We have jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 3107 and 3108 (1994).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 We review actions taken by a trial court on remand from an appeal for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 See In re Marriage of Blinderman}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 669 N.E.2d 687, 694 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996); }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 see also R.J.M. v. State Dep}{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 t. of Soc. Servs.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 973 P.2d 79, 86 (Alaska 1999).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 But see Slattery v. Covey & Co.,}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 909 P.2d 925, 926 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (actions taken by a trial court on remand is reviewed }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 de novo}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ). \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 III.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [11]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s main contention in this appeal is that }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 the trial court erred in perfunctorily denying [him] an award of back pay for the years following his unlawful discharge from the Department of Law.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Appellant}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Opening Brief, p. 6.}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 To support his contention, Haeuser employs a two-prong, procedural and substantive, attack on the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Decision and Order.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Accordingly, we address the arguments presented by the parties in our resolution of the following two issues: (1) whe ther the trial court erred in the manner it interpreted the Mandate; and (2) whether the trial court erred in not awarding Haeuser back pay in light of the Mandate. \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 A.}{\b\insrsid1855293 }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Procedural Attack}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [12]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab The first issue we address is whether the trial court erred in the manner it interpreted this court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Mandate.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser argues that the trial court committed the following two errors in its interpretation of the Mandate: first, by treating the Mandate as an order to enter judgment against him; and second, by not construing the Mandate as an order for }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 further proceedings}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 and thereby failing to conduct an independent analysis of all the trial record before reaching its conclusion.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 We disagree with Haeuser on both points of error. \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 1.}{\b\insrsid1855293 }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 An Order to Enter Judgment}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [13]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab The first procedural challenge that Haeuser raises is that the trial court erred when it read the Mandate as a decree to enter a judgment for the Government.}{ \insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 After conducting an examination of the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s decision and order, we readily dispose of this first challenge.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Contrary to Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s claim, the trial court did not interpret the Mandate as a decree prohibiting Haeuser from receiving back pay.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Rather, the trial court acknowledged that because the Mandate did not expressly order that Haeuser was entitled to back pay award, it was faced with the task of determining, }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 whether the Petitioner is entitled to a back pay award that is reduced based upon his failure to mitigate h is damages, or whether the Petitioner is simply not entitled to any award of back pay in this matter.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Appellant}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Excerpts of Record, Tab 6, p. 5 (Decision and Order, April 27, 2000).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Although the court ultimately found that Haeuser }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [was] not entitled to any award of back pay, based upon his failure to mitigate damages,}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Appellant}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Excerpts of Record, tab 6, p. 13 (Decision and Order, April 27, 2000), the trial court unambiguously explained in its decision that it reached this conclusion only after }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 having considered the findings set forth by the Supreme Court, and after having considered authorities on the effect of the failure to mitigate damages on a back pay award.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Appellant}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Excerpts of Record, tab 6, p. 4 (Decision and Order, April 27, 2000).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Thus, the trial court did not treat the Mandate as an order to enter judgment.}{\insrsid13989402 \par }{\insrsid1855293\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 2.}{\b\insrsid1855293 }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Further Proceedings}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [14]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab The second procedural attack that Haeuser raises is that the Mandate, specifically the portion which reads, }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 REMANDED for findings consistent with this opinion,}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 required the trial court to conduct further proceedings.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid13989402 2}{\insrsid13989402 }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 We note that although Haeuser maintains that the trial court erred in not conducting further proceedings, Haeuser fails to denote exactly which issue the trial court failed to further explore, the issue of mitigation or the issue of back pay. Because the law of the case doctrine precludes Haeuser from relitigating the mitigation issue, }{\i\fs20\insrsid13989402 In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 160 U.S. 247, 259, 16 S. Ct. 291, 294 (1895); }{\i\fs20\insrsid13989402 GHURA v. Pac. Superior Enters. Corp.}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 , 2001 Guam 8, }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 14; }{\i\fs20\insrsid13989402 People v. Hualde} {\fs20\insrsid13989402 , 1999 Guam 3, }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 13, we assume that Haeuser is asserting that the trial court should have conducted further proceedings with respect to the back pay issue.}{\insrsid13989402 }}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Although we are cognizant of }{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s failure to clearly articulate what }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 REMANDED for findings consistent with this opinion}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 meant in the context of determining whether Haeuser was entitled to any back pay award, we are nonetheless unpersuaded by Haeuser}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s argument that the trial court erred when it did not conduct further proceedings to the extent sought by Haeuser.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13989402 \chftn }{\insrsid13989402 }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 Haeuser asserts that the trial court committed error by not conducting }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 further proceedings.}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 The }{ \fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 further proceedings}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 that Haeuser is apparently alluding to is the trial court}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 s failure }{ \fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 to make an independent analysis of the entire trial record in light of the issues decided in [}{\i\fs20\insrsid13989402 Haeuser I}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 ] . . . .}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 s Opening Brief, p. 10. Assuming }{\i\fs20\insrsid13989402 arguendo}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 that we were to accept Haeuser}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 s assertion, Haeuser fails to point out any evidence in the record that the trial court should have evaluated, but overlooked. }}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [15]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab The inclusion of the }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 REMANDED for findings consistent with this opinion}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 clause in the Mandate did not obligate the trial court to conduct further proceedings.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The Mandate clearly stated }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 further findings}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 and not }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 further proceedings.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 We are unaided by Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s citation to cases, which required the trial court to conduct }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 further proceedings,}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 primarily because in those cited cases, the mandates clearly denoted }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 further proceedings}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 and not }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 findings.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Superior Court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 86 P. 2d. 85, 87, 12 Cal. 2d 549, 553, (1939) (mandate providing that, }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 )}{\cs15\super\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13989402 \chftn }{\insrsid13989402 }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 In his brief, Haeuser misstates the Mandate in this case by noting it as }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\fs20\insrsid13989402 findings}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 not inconsistent with this opinion,}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 s Opening Brief, p. 9 (emphasis added), rather than }{ \fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further }{\i\fs20\insrsid13989402 proceedings}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 not inconsistent with this opinion.}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 }{\i\fs20\insrsid13989402 Atchison, }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 86 P.2d. at 87, 12 Cal. 2d at 553 (emphasis added).}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ; }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 District of Columbia v. McBlair}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 124 U.S. 320, 330, 8 S. Ct. 547, 552 (1888) (mandate providing that, }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The decree in question reversed the decree of the special term of August 7, 1875, and remanded the cause to the special term to be further proceeded with as the parties might be advised.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Moreover, we are unable to accept Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s sweeping proposition that }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 findings}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 and }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 further proceedings}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 are interchangeable and should be accorded the same effect, in view of his failure to cite to any caselaw, which supports such a nexus.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [16]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab Additionally, even if we were to accept Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s premise that }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 further findings}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 and }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 further proceedings}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 are analogous, we are not constraine d to find that the trial court erred in its treatment of the case.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 We follow the rationale of the court in }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Brown v. Whitaker}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 926 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996), which expressed that, }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [w]hen a case is remanded fo r further proceedings consistent with this opinion such an order is a simple reversal and remand because every remanded case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the appellate court opinion.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Brown}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 926 S.W.2d at 4 (citations and internal quotations omitted).}{ \insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}} }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [P]roceeding}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 simply means further judicial action; it does not necessarily mean an evidentiary hearing.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Id.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In essence, even if the Mandate were to be interpreted as an order for }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 further proceedings,}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 the trial court was only required to take judicial action in accordance with this court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s opinion.}{ \insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 As the following paragraphs reflect, the trial court proceeded in accordance with the Mandate. \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [17]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab In resolving whether the trial court correctly proceeded on remand and complied with the Mandate, the }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Slattery v. Covey & Co., }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 909 P.2d 925 (Utah Ct. App. 1995), case is instructive.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Slattery}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , the appellate court held }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 that the trial court acted beyond the scope of its authority on remand by accepting evidence anew}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 on an issue that was previously addressed during the first appeal.}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Slattery}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 909 P.2d at 928.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The court expressed that }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 the lower court must implement both the letter and the spirit of the mandate, taking into account the appellate court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s opinion and the circumstances it embraces.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Id.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 (quoting }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Thurston v. Box Elder County}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 892 P.2d 1034, 1037-38 (Utah 1995)).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Slattery}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 court further explained that, }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 it is only when issues are left open by an appellate decision that the trial court has discretion to deal with those issues as it sees fit, }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 including allowing supplemental filings or proceedings}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 .}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Id.}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Furthermore, in determining whether an issue has been left open in a prior decision, both the mandate and opinion should be examined.}{ \insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 See McDonough v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 968 S.W.2d 771, 773 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (finding that in construing the mandate, the opinion of the reviewing court }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 is part of the mandate and must be used to interpret the mandate itself.}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ); }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 see also Sanford}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 160 U.S. at 256, 16 S. Ct. at 293 (}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [O]pinion delivered by . . . [the] court at the time of rendering its decree may be consulted to ascertain what was intended by its mandate . . . .}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ); }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 McWhorter v. McWhorter}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 716 So. 2d 720, 722 (Ala Civ. App. 1998) (}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 When the mandate of the appellate court is not clear, the court's opinion should be consulted.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [18]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab In the case at bar, we acknowledge that }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 did not expressly hold that Haeuser was not entitled to back pay award.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 However, after examining the Mandate in conjunction wit h the opinion, we find that the back pay award issue was disposed of by implication.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 See Poletti v. C.I.R.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 351 F.2d 345, 349 (8th Cir. 1965).}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , this court addressed the mitigation issue by first setting forth the overarching principle that, }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [i]t is well settled that any injured party, who is entitled to damages, is required to mitigate those damages.}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 1999 Guam 12 at }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 11.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 then ultimately held that the trial court incorrectly found that Haeuser reasonably mitigated his damages.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Id}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 . at }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 22.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Bearing in mind the overarching principle initially set forth by this court, it would then be a fair implication of the }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 opinion that Haeuser was not entitled to damages because he did not reasonably mitigate his damages.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [19]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab The }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 implication}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 reasoning we employ today is not a novel approach and can be found in the }{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Poletti v. C.I.R.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 351 F.2d 345 (8th Cir. 1965), case cited by Haeuser.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Poletti}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , the court acknowledged its failure in a prior opinion to }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 expressly [hold] that there was no substance in petitioners}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 first contention.}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Poletti}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 351 F.2d at 349.}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The court went on to state, however, that }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 a rational consideration of our prior opinion, in its entirety, convincingly demonstrates that the issue was necessarily disposed of by implication . . . . Petitioners are not entitled to secure another adjudication upon any issue which was 'expressly or impliedly disposed of' on the first appeal.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Id.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ; }{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Aardvark Art, Inc. v. Lehigh/Steck-Warlick, Inc.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 672 N.E.2d 1271, 1276 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (quoting }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Williamsburg Wax Museum, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc., }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 810 F.2d 243, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1987))}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 (}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The [law of the case] doctrine encompasses a court's explicit decisions, as well as those issues decided by necessary implication.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ); }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Slattery}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 909 P.2d at 928 (stating that }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 appellate review is not intended to grant litigants a second chance to present their case when they have had a full and fair opportunity to do so at an earlier trial.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Because the }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 court disposed of the mitigation issue, the trial court was not required to review the record with respect to the issue.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not commit any procedural errors on remand.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 B.}{\b\insrsid1855293 }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Substantive Attack \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [20]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab The next issue we address is whether the trial court erred in denying Haeuser back pay in light of this court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Mandate.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser asserts that }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 the complete trial record supports a judgment for [him] under the law of this case.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\cs15\super\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\super\insrsid13989402 \chftn }{\insrsid13989402 }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 It appears that this issue is the focal point of Haeuser}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid13989402 s appeal, as reflected from his in depth discussion of this issue in pages twelve through twenty-five of his brief. }}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 He further contends that even though }{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 f ound that he did not reasonably mitigate his damages and adopted a new burden of proof standard, he is still entitled to an award of back pay because the trial court failed to consider evidence that he would not have been hired by a private firm even if h e applied at one.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 As the following discussion reflects, we are unpersuaded by Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s arguments. \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [21]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab We begin our discussion by noting Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s misapplication of the law of the case doctrine.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 At first blush it appears that Haeuser is applying the law of the case doctrine to prove that the trial court erred in denying him any back pay award; however, a close examination of Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s discussion in this section reveals that Haeuser is instead rehabilitating the issue of mitigation, which was previously disposed of in }{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 .}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Consequently, this issue should have been raised in a petition for rehearing of the }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 opinion and not in this present appeal.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 As }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 English v. Olympic Auditorium}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 52 P.2d 267, 10 Cal. App. 2d 196 (Ct. App. 1935) elucidated:}{\insrsid13989402 \par }{\insrsid1855293\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 If a court of review inadvertently omits to include in its instructions to a trial court upon the reversal of a judgment esse ntial elements within the issues necessarily determined on the appeal, the aggrieved party has his remedy in a petition for rehearing. A trial court may not exceed the specific directions of a court of review in remanding a cause after a reversal of the j udgment on appeal and add thereto conditions which it assumes the reviewing court should have included. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 English}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 52 P.2d at 269, 10 Cal. App. 2d at 201.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [22]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab Having noted Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s misapplication of the law of the case doctrine, we next address how the doctrine supports the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s finding that Haeuser was not entitled to any back pay award.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13989402 \chftn }{\insrsid13989402 }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 We reemphasize our previous analysis, which illustrated how the issue of back pay was impliedly disposed of in }{ \i\fs20\insrsid13989402 Haeuser I}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 . \par }}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Under the law of the case doctrine, }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 GHURA}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 2001 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 14 (citing }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Hualde}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 1999 Guam 3 at }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 13).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 This principle is also reflected in }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.,}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 160 U.S. 247, 16 S. Ct. 291 (1895), which provides:}{\insrsid13989402 \par }{\insrsid1855293\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 When a case has been once decided by this c ourt on appeal, and remanded to the circuit court, whatever was before this court, and disposed of by its decree, is considered as finally settled. The circuit court is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate. That court cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it, even for apparent error, upon any matter decided on appeal; or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Id.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 160 U.S. at 255, 16 S. Ct. at 293.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The doctrine is not a limitation on a tribunal}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s power but rather a guide to its discretion.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 GHURA}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 2001 Guam 8 at }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 14 (citing to }{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Hualde}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 1999 Guam 3 at }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 13).}{ \insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In addition, the doctrine promotes the }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 public policy against reopening matters which have been decided.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Iowa Dist. Court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 612 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Iowa 2000) (citing }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Wolfe v. Graether}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 389 N.W.2d 643, 651 (Iowa 1986)). \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [23]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab Here, both parties agree that }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 held that the trial court erred when it concluded that Haeuser reasonably mitigated his damages.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 It is also undisputed that }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 adopted a new burden of proof standard with respect to mitigation of damages and in accordance with the new standard, the Government met its burden in proving that Haeuser did not reasonably mitigate his damages because he failed to apply to any private law firms.}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 The thrust of the dispute, however, emanates from Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s claim that the analysis does not end with proving that he did not mitigate his damages.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Without support from case law, Haeuser maintains that the next step in the analysis should be to consider evidence that would illustrate that he would not have been hired by a private firm even if he had applied.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 We disagree.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [24]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab In determining whether Haeuser was entitled to any back pay, the trial court set out the general rule that }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 a party entitled to recover back pay to a wrongful termination from employment must undertake to mitigate his or her damages during the period of unemployment.}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Appellant}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Excerpts of Record, Tab 6, page 4 (Decision and Order, April 27, 2000).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 It further noted that although an employee is not entitled to back pay if he or she failed to mitigate, courts have allowed the award of back pay for those periods that the employee did mitigate.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Appellant}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Excerpts of Record, Tab 6, p. 5 (Decision and Order, April 27, 2000); s}{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ee also Dyer v. Workers Com. Bd.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 30, 36 (1994) (stating that }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [a]n employee is required to mitigate damages and a failure to mitigate may preclude an award and in any event an award for lost wages must be reduced by such sums as the employee earned or might reasonably have earned during the relevant period.}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ) (citations and internal quotations omitted).}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In calculating the amount of back pay that Haeuser was entitled to, the trial court applied the }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 find ing that Haeuser did not reasonably mitigate his damages based on his failure to apply to any private firm.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Focusing on this court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s reliance on Exhibit O,}{\cs15\super\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13989402 \chftn }{\insrsid13989402 }{\fs20\insrsid13989402 Exhibit O is a thirteen-page ta ble listing the names of attorneys from the Superior Court of Guam Directory and delineating the type of work each attorney engaged in from years 1990 to 1996 (excluding year 1992). The Exhibit also summarized how many attorneys entered private practice during 1991 through 1996 (excluding 1992) and how many of those new private practioners were formerly government attorneys. Appellee}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{ \fs20\insrsid13989402 s Supplemental Excerpt}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13989402 s of Record, Tab. B, pp. 1-13 (Exhibit O).}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 the trial court reviewed Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s unemployment period on a year-by-year basis, ascertaining whether there was a year wherein Haeuser applied to a private law firm.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 When it deter mined that Haeuser did not apply to a firm in any of those years, the trial court correctly found that Haeuser was not entitled to any back pay.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid1855293 \par }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [25]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab With regard to Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s claim that the trial court should have looked beyond Exhibit O and considered evidence that would have proven that he would not have been hired by a private law firm even if he had applied to one, the Government}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Brief correctly points out that t he trial court would have erred if it had reconsidered such evidence.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Appellee}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Reply Brief, page 8.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I, }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 this court did consider such evidence when it analyzed the trial court}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s previous }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 common sense approach}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 in determining Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s chances in obtaining a job in a private law firm.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I,}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 1999 Guam 12 at }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 21.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 This court, however, was not persuaded by the evidence in view of Haeuser}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s failure to apply to at least one private firm.}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Id}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 .}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 If the trial court reconsidered such evidence and reached a different conclusion on remand, it would have, in effect, violated the previous finding by this court and rendered a decision inconsistent with }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Haeuser I}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 .}{\insrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 See}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Palm Rest. of Georgia, Inc. v. Prakas}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 383 S.E.2d 584, 585-86 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989) (stating that, }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 the decision of the appellate court, and any direction awarded, shall be respected and in good faith carried into full effect by the court below.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 ) (citations and internal quotations omitted); }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 see also Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 , 53 F.3d 1484, 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (When a case has been decided by an appellate c ourt and remanded, the court to which it is remanded must proceed in accordance with the mandate and such law of the case as was established by the appellate court.) (citing }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Firth v. United States, }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 554 F.2d 990, 993 (9th Cir. 1977)); }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Snoffer v. City of Los Angeles,}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 58 P.2d 961, 14 Cal. App. 2d 650, 653 (Ct. App. 1936).}{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 In essence, when the law of the case doctrine is applied to this case, Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s claim that the trial court erred when it reversed his award of back pay fails. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 III.}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 [26]}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab Because we find no procedural and substantive errors in the trial court}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s application of the Mandate, we hold that trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Haeuser was not entitled to any back pay award.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 We hold that the trial court did not err in denying Haeuser}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 s Motion for a new trial.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is }{\b\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 AFFIRMED}{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 .}{\insrsid1855293 \par \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 MICHAEL J.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 BORDALLO\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid1855293 }{ \insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO \par Justice }{\i\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 Associate Justice}{\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid1855293 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1855293 {\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 PETER C.}{\insrsid1855293 }{\insrsid13989402\charrsid1855293 SIGUENZA, JR. \par Chief Justice \par }}