Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The petition procedure was abolished around 1980 by Congress and replaced with the simple filing-of-notice removal procedure, although federal courts still see the occasional petition for removal or a motion for remand due to the lack of such a petition. [citation needed] There is no reverse "removal".
A remand may be a full remand, essentially ordering an entirely new trial; when an appellate court grants a full remand, the lower court's decision is "reversed and remanded." Alternatively, it may be "with instructions" specifying, for example, that the lower court must use a different legal standard when considering facts already entered at ...
Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000), [1] was a case decided by the 6th Circuit that held that remand to a state court cannot be achieved after removal to a federal court by lowering the damages sought to fall below the amount in controversy requirement.
Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (1995), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that when an action has been removed from state court to a United States Bankruptcy Court, and the bankruptcy court remands to state court because of a timely-raised defect in removal procedure or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the removal statute precludes a United States ...
A grant, vacate, remand (GVR) is a type of order issued by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court simultaneously grants a petition for certiorari, ...
On Nov. 15, the state filed its motion to stay the district judge’s injunction pending appeal. On Nov. 19, the appeals court gave the plaintiffs until Nov. 27 to file briefs responding to ...
Aaron Graham, who punched a man in a fight, was given an IPP sentence with a minimum term of two years and 124 days in 2005 but has served almost 20 years, including time spent on remand
On remand, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York had found the counties liable to the Oneida for wrongful possession of their lands, awarded damages of $16,694, plus interest, representing the fair rental value of the land in question for the 2-year period specified in the complaint. Finally, the District Court ...