Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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, vacates the decision of the court below, and remands the case for further proceedings.
Depending on the facts of each case, the court may be able to achieve a final resolution of all such cases (e.g., by affirming summary judgment in all of them), or it may have to remand one or more of them for further proceedings such as a trial.
As generally used, "law of the case" states that, if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same. [3]
It may, in addition, send the case back ("remand" or "remit") to the lower court for further proceedings to remedy the defect. In some cases, an appellate court may review a lower court decision "de novo" (or completely), challenging even the lower court's findings of fact.
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. A person who is on remand is held in a prison or detention centre or held under house arrest.
In an 8–1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision and remanded the case back for further proceedings. The court had held in Bruno v. United States [ 8 ] that federal defendants were granted that right in federal court, but the decision came as a result of a federal statute rather than constitutional law.
With this holding pronounced, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding whether Thompson had been "seized" under the Fourth Amendment, whether the officers had probable cause to enter Thompson's home without a warrant, and whether any of the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. [4]