Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
When the United States Supreme Court grants certiorari and reverses a decision of a state supreme court or a Federal appeals court, it may remand the case. Likewise, an appeals court may remand a case to a trial court. A remand may be a full remand, essentially ordering an entirely new trial; when an appellate court grants a full remand, the ...
In 1996, the Supreme Court discussed the appropriateness of GVR orders and upheld their use in a per curiam opinion in the case Lawrence v. Chater. [3] An example of the Supreme Court issuing a GVR order is the case of Kansas v. Limon. Under Kansas state law, statutory rape charges involving minors were greatly reduced if both parties were ...
In nearly all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, the Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction granted to it by Article III of the Constitution. This authority permits the Court to affirm, amend or overturn decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. Procedures for bringing cases before the Supreme Court have changed significantly over ...
On remand, the Supreme Court of Alabama ordered a new trial unless plaintiff accepted a remittitur of all but $50,000 of the punitive damages awarded. [3] The court reasoned that it may not have given sufficient weight to the degree of reprehensibility of BMW's conduct, and selected the $50,000 as in the range of other Alabama verdicts in cases ...
The process for replacing a Supreme Court justice attracts considerable public attention and is closely scrutinized. [1] Typically, the whole process takes several months, but it can be, and on occasion has been, completed more quickly. Since the mid 1950s, the average time from nomination to final Senate vote has been about 55 days.
U.S. Supreme Court has precedent on upholding due process rights. In an old case right after the Civil War, Chief Justice Salmon Chase examines the Fourteenth Amendment, and delved into due ...
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts slammed what he described as “dangerous” talk by some officials about ignoring federal court rulings, using an annual report weeks before President ...
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of "strict scrutiny", the most stringent level of review which requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. [1]