With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". supports them. Harkins v. Greenville County, 340 S.C. 606, 621, 533 S.E.2d 886, 893 (2000). Law/Analysis In the first question presented for our review, Appellant alleges that the master-in-equity erred in refusing to declare the magistrate’s judgment void ab initio for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We disagree, and hold that Appellant may not seek relief from the prior unappealed order of the circuit court because the order has become the law of the case. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court. C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 991 (2008); see also Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 576 S.E.2d 156 (2003) (<HOLDING>); In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370 n. 2, 468 S.E.2d

A: holding that in absence of changed circumstances and except there be some other most cogent reason when judge makes or denies interlocutory order and when appeal lies as of right from such order it should not be reconsidered even by judge who made the order much less by another judge
B: holding that a family court judge could not overrule the prior unappealed order of another family court judge because it had become law of thecase
C: holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion lacked specificity
D: holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion was not made in good faith
B.