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 ...
Missouri v. Galin E. Frye , 566 U.S. 134 (2012), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that attorneys of criminal defendants have the duty to communicate plea bargains offered to the accused.
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]
Missouri v. McNeely , 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court , on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri , regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances .
On remand, the Seventh Circuit now granted habeas relief to Corcoran, indicating that the state courts should reconsider its sentence in order to comply with state law. The Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's ruling. The Court ruled that Federal courts may only grant a writ of habeas corpus if a violation of federal law is found.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. [1]
On May 31, 2022, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit decision by a 5–4 vote, allowing the injunction to take effect once more. Justices Samuel Alito , Clarence Thomas , and Neil Gorsuch dissented, writing that H.B. 20 was "novel" and that it was not clear how precedent should apply, so therefore the Supreme Court should not intervene.