Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 lower court's decision is "reversed and remanded." Alternatively, it may be "with instructions" specifying, for example, that the lower court must use a ...
Following an initial dismissal, appeal, and remand, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the District's demand for offsite mitigation violated Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard , since the improvements to the District's property lacked either an essential nexus or rough proportionality to the environmental ...
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 ...
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), more commonly Dolan v.Tigard, is a United States Supreme Court case. [1] It is a landmark case regarding the practice of zoning and property rights, and has served to establish limits on the ability of cities and other government agencies to use zoning and land-use regulations to compel property owners to make unrelated public improvements as a ...
Lady Justice—the allegory of justice—statue at court building in Olomouc, Czech Republic. Pre-trial detention, also known as jail, preventive detention, provisional detention, or remand, is the process of detaining a person until their trial after they have been arrested and charged with an offence.
On Nov. 14, the appeals court said the district judge’s ruling was deficient and asked for arguments why the appeal should not be remanded back for a clearer order.
Because the costs of building through parks were demonstrably low, as construction before 1966 had shown, the Court held that the 1966 enactment of the "feasible and prudent" clause "indicates that protection of parkland was to be given paramount importance." [8] The Court remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. [9]
The agency has used blog posts, vague guidance, and enforcement actions to establish policies that deem common practices to be a risk to consumers.