Timeline for What does it mean for the average person when a US Circuit Court vacates and remands a case?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17 at 9:25 | comment | added | phoog | @MerryMisanthrope yes. For (very contrived) example, a court might rule that vehicle searches must be conducted while wearing a green hat to be permissible under the fourth amendment. In one case, a conviction might be reversed because the officer had been wearing a blue hat, while in another case a conviction might be upheld because the officer had been wearing a green hat. The disposition of the cases is opposite, but the newly articulated principle of law is the same. | |
| Jun 15 at 19:12 | history | edited | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 35 characters in body
|
| Jun 15 at 18:07 | history | edited | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 269 characters in body
|
| Jun 15 at 17:36 | history | edited | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 237 characters in body
|
| Jun 15 at 17:21 | history | edited | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| Jun 15 at 17:05 | comment | added | Merry Misanthrope | @phoog So the disposition of the case itself doesn't matter, but Circuit Court's reasoning for why Jacobson v. Massachusetts doesn't apply sets a precedent in the 9th Circuit? | |
| Jun 15 at 16:57 | comment | added | phoog | @MerryMisanthrope a district court case has no effect for people who aren't parties to the case, so it doesn't matter to them whether the case has been heard yet. (But vacating the decision erases only the decision, not the entire case.) The appeal, however, could set a precedent that is relevant to anyone with a pending (or future) case in the circuit. The disposition of the district court case itself isn't relevant, only the statement of the law. | |
| Jun 15 at 16:48 | comment | added | Merry Misanthrope | So for other people in similar situations, and even for the plaintiffs, it's basically as if the case has not been heard yet? | |
| Jun 15 at 12:54 | history | edited | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jun 15 at 5:54 | comment | added | Trish | and most importantly: This is not a new case, but a continuation of the old one. | |
| Jun 15 at 4:27 | history | answered | Jen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |