Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
An appellate court may also vacate its own decisions. Rules of procedure may allow vacatur either at the request of a party (a motion to vacate) or sua sponte (at the court's initiative). [1] A vacated judgment may free the parties to civil litigation to re-litigate the issues subject to the vacated judgment.
Federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, have the power to "remand [a] cause and ... require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances." [1] This includes the power to make summary "grant, vacate and remand" (GVR) orders. [2] Appellate courts remand cases whose outcome they are unable to finally ...
The "Supreme Court" style is designed for more lengthy, in-depth articles, but either structure is acceptable. The most significant difference between the "Supreme Court" style and the "Opinion of the Court" style is that the "Supreme Court" style contains the arguments section while the "Opinion of the Court" style keeps oral arguments in the ...
If the appellate court finds no defect, it "affirms" the judgment. If the appellate court does find a legal defect in the decision "below" (i.e., in the lower court), it may "modify" the ruling to correct the defect, or it may nullify ("reverse" or "vacate") the whole decision or any part of it.
(1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 ...
"This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP. In referring to Donald Trump, Morelle said the former president "must be held accountable for his decisions. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and stand with me on the front line to protect our democracy.”
FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement.