Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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]
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 ...
An order of this sort is typically appropriate when there has been a change in legal circumstances subsequent to the lower court or agency's decision, such as a change in the law, a precedential ruling, or a confession of error; the Supreme Court simply sends the case back to the lower court to be reconsidered in light of the new law or the new ...
The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN. California Rep. Kevin McCarthy has once again made history, this time for being the first House speaker to be ...
The en banc Sixth Circuit again vacated, and remanded for the panel to revise its opinion. In its third opinion, the panel granted relief to Van Hook on the sole ground that his lawyers did not adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence, relying on the American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of ...
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 ...
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. [7] Citing District of Columbia v.Heller [8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago, [9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding ...
He concluded the plea should have been vacated and Alford should have been retried, writing: "the facts set out in the majority opinion demonstrate that Alford was 'so gripped by fear of the death penalty' that his decision to plead guilty was not voluntary but was "the product of duress as much so as choice reflecting physical constraint." [3]