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 ...
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 ...
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.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v.
Remand may refer to: Remand (court procedure) , when an appellate court sends a case back to the trial court or lower appellate court Pre-trial detention , detention of a suspect prior to a trial, conviction, or sentencing
The court declined to hear the case en banc. [ 16 ] [ 10 ] During the early parts of the case, the EPA, under President Barack Obama 's administration still had upheld the initial statements that there were no need for permits for these types of wells, but had been working with environmentalists to devise new standards.
The agency has used blog posts, vague guidance, and enforcement actions to establish policies that deem common practices to be a risk to consumers.
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]