Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
In light of this, on June 27, the Supreme Court granted Limon's petition, vacated the ruling of the Kansas Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further consideration. After the Court of Appeals again upheld the law, the Kansas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and unanimously struck down the part of the law excluding same-sex sexual ...
A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court, which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court. 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]
One paragraph. The Court initially granted review of only Question 1 of the cert petition. After hearing arguments, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted, but simultaneously issued a grant, vacate, remand of the entire cert petition in light of Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., which had been decided the same day. Maryland v. Blake
568 U.S. 1 Decided November 5, 2012. Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded. The Supreme Court vacated a Fourth Circuit ruling that a civil rights plaintiff who had been awarded an injunction, but not monetary damages, was not entitled to attorney's fees as a "prevailing plaintiff" under 42 U.S.C. §1988. The Court ruled that the plaintiff was indeed a "prevailing plaintiff" within the meaning of ...
Supreme Court of Idaho reversed and remanded. It, like any other state or federal court, is bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law. In this case, the Idaho Supreme Court concluded that it was not bound by the Supreme Court's interpretation in Hughes v. Rowe, regarding awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant.
The Federal District court subsequently vacated the Bankruptcy award and reduced Smith's award to $88 million. However, after a five-month jury trial in Texas, the Probate Court entered a decision that J. Howard Marshall's will and trust were valid, and that his son was the primary beneficiary—rejecting Smith's claim that the son had exerted ...
The opinion, consistent with the Court's practice when a significant supervening change in law has occurred, vacated the criminal convictions of the students and remanded the case back to the Maryland Court of Appeals to allow it to consider whether the convictions should be dismissed under the current state law.