No it is not. If a criminal defendant had been convicted of two charges and the appellate court reversed in part by setting aside the conviction on one of the charges, there would be no remand because the defendant could not be retried on the count reversed. In a civil action, if a plaintiff won on two counts of a complaint and the appellate court reversed the judgment on one by reason of it not being supported by the weight of the evidence, it would not be remanded because the plaintiff doesn't get another chance to prove his case.
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoWiki User
∙ 12y agoIt could be, but not necessarily. The two terms do not necessarily mean the same thing. To "remand," in general, means 'to send back.' An appeals court may remand a case to the trial court for further action if it reverses the judgment of the lower court.
It is a finding by an appellate court, which sends a case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court must conduct further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's ruling.
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoTo remand, or remanded, in general, means to send back. An appeals court may remand a case to the trial court for further action if it reverses the judgment of the lower court.
The case is sent back to the lower court to be re-tried.
"Affirmed," meaning that the appellate court agreed with the ruling of the lower court; "reversed" (or "overturned") meaning that the appellate court did not agree with the ruling of the lower court; and "remanded for further proceedings" meaning that the case could not be resolved or fully resolved on appeal and requires further hearings or argument in the lower court.Affirmed - Reversed - Remanded
Affirmed - Reversed - Remanded
Whether or not it is good to have a case remanded depends on how you have made out so far in the case and whether the reason for remand was favorable to your arguments.
Returning a case to a lower court means that the appeals judge has deemed that the case needs to be retried. The case may be said to have been reversed and remanded or just remanded.
The Brown vs. Board of Education case overturned the Plessy vs. Ferguson case.
Not necessarily. Cases remanded back to a lower court are occasionally sent back down simply to be tweaked or have minor procedural errors corrected. If they were any more serious, the Appeals Court would have overturned them and vacated the finding or sentence. OR - if they were in majority agreement with the lower court the finding would have been "affirmed."
The Brown vs. Board of Education case overturned the Plessy vs. Ferguson case.
When a cases is sent back for further proceedings to the court that originally heard the case, it is actually being remanded. Remanded means that the original court now has control over the case.
When a case is remanded, it is sent from an appellate court to either a lower appellate court or the trial court with instructions to that court to take a particular action regarding the case. For example, if an appellate court vacates a conviction, it may remand the case to the trial court for a new trial.
It means the appelate court has reversed the trial courts finding (reversed) - and ordered the case returned to the lower court (remanded) - and has released (relinquished) its (the Appeals Courts) interest in the case back to the trial court.
When a case is remanded it goes back to the court where it was originally tried. In the federal court system, that would usually be a US District Court.