Recently I was looking at a case in the Federal courts that was appealed, then reversed and remanded back to the District trial court that first heard the case.
I'm interested in a passage from the original (1998) opinion that appears to interpret a statute:
However, "visitor enjoyment" as used in the statute refers to visitor enjoyment of park scenery, wildlife, and natural and historic objects that are to be preserved. As used in this sense, visitor enjoyment does not refer to visitor enjoyment of outdoor recreational activities.
In the original opinion would this passage be considered legal holding? If so, did it survive the process of being remanded?