delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is аn appeal by the State of Montana from an order of Lewis and Clark County dismissing 38 counts of a 43 count amended Information filed against defendant. In view of the imminent trial date, we entered our Order and Judgment on September 17, 1976, vacаting the district court’s order of dismissal, ordered 10 counts dismissed- as conceded by the State, and ordered the remaining 33 сounts remanded to the district court for trial.
State v. Carden,
This case began on December 20, 1974, when the State filed its motion for leave to filе a direct Information in the district court charging defendant Carden with 118 counts of criminal offenses. Twenty-five days and two judgеs later, the Hon. Nat Allen granted the State leave to file this Information. Fourteen and one-half months and two judges lаter, the Hon. Paul Hatfield ordered 75 counts dismissed and granted the State leave to file an Amended Information covering the remaining 43 counts. Four months and 10 days later, the sixth judge in the case, the Hon.. Robert H. Wilson, dis *439 missed 38 counts of the 43 count Amеnded Information by order of August 10, 1976.
The State has appealed from Judge Wilson’s order dismissing the 38 counts. However, the State concedes dismissal of 10 of these counts. The issue on appeal is whether the remaining 28 counts should have been dismissed.
We note that both the original Information and the Amended Information contained the 28 counts in issue. Judge Allen grаnted leave to file the original Information containing these 28 counts and Judge Hatfield granted leave to file thе Amended Information containing these 28 counts. Such leave could not have been granted except on a finding of probable cause. The controlling statute, section 95-1301(a), R.C.M.1947, provides in pertinent part:
“The county attorney may apply directly to the district court for permission to file an information against a named defendant. Thе application must be by affidavit supported by such evidence as the judge may require. If it appears that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed by the defendant the judge shall grаnt leave to file the information, otherwise the application shall be denied.” (Emphasis added.)
Two judges had аlready found probable cause for filing the 28 counts at issue in this appeal. The “law of the case” on probable cause for filing these 28 counts had already been considered, determined and established. Although some courts limit application of the “law of the case” doctrine to final decisions of the highest appellate court
(Filanowski v. Zoning Board of Adjustment,
*440
Under the “law of the case” principle, judges of coordinate jurisdictions sitting in thе same court and in the same case may not ordinarily overrule the decisions of each other.
United States v. Baynes,
D.C.,
What factors are present in this case that would move the discretion of Judge Wilson to reconsider the prior determinations of Judge Allen and Judge Hatfield? None have been brought to our аttention and we perceive none. Defendant argues that because the prior determinations of Judge Allen and Judge Hatfield were ex parte determinations, a later adversary hearing on probable cause wаs not precluded. But were they? Judge Allen’s determination of probable cause on the original 118 count Informatiоn may fall in this category, but this does not apply to Judge Hatfield’s determination of probable cause. This matter wаs fully briefed and argued by both the State and defendant. An adversary hearing was held on defendant’s motions on February 4, 1976, at which counsel for both the State and the defendant were present. Thereafter Judge Hatfield entered an ordеr dismissing 75 counts of the original Information and granting leave to the State to file an Amended Information on the remaining 43 сounts.
On the other hand, there are factors in this case against the
*441
exercise of discretion to reconsider the prior rulings. There is an absence of anything to indicate Judge Hatfield’s prior ruling was in error. The case had dragged along for a year and a half, six different judges had been involved, and the trial date had not yet been set. To go bаck and relitigate the issue of probable cause for the 28 counts filed at' the commencement of the аction would permit endless manipulation of the judicial system and thwart its proper operation and objectives. It would also permit a judge of coordinate jurisdiction to perform appellate functions, in effeсt, over the decisions of another district judge, a practice which this Court has previously condemned.
State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Kinman,
For the fоregoing reasons we hold that it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Wilson to reconsider the prior ruling of Judge Hatfiеld on probable cause for filing the 28 counts at issue in this appeal. Judge Wilson’s order of dismissal is vacated and sеt aside; Counts 12, 13, 10, 17, 26, 27, 30, 31, 36 and 37 of the Amended Information are stricken as conceded by the State; and the remaining 33 counts of the Amended Information are remanded to the district court for trial; and remittitur shall issue forthwith; all as provided in our previous Order and Judgment herein dated September 17, 1976.