129 Sentences With "remanding" | Random Sentence Generator

Justice Alan Whitten agreed, remanding Baratov in custody until May 26.

The Supreme Court ended up remanding the case, instructing the court to make special considerations.

The high court said it was remanding the case to the appeals court for further discussion.

In 2013, Kennedy wrote an opinion remanding the case back to the lower court to take another look.

"The court should decide the case on the merits, or terminate it by remanding the case to EPA," the greens wrote.

The judges concluded the hearing by remanding Kavala in jail while a most defense lawyers and observers were outside of the courtroom.

Under zero tolerance, border officials aggressively prosecuted first-time illicit border crossings, remanding adult migrants to prosecutors and their children to the care of the state.

The Supreme Court dissented on Monday, denying the post 9-/11 detainees any relief, besides remanding one prisoner-abuse claim to the Court of Appeals for consideration.

The film ends with Orta remanding himself to prison, a sobering reminder that in so many cases around police violence, there are no easy answers or uplifting endings.

The Trump administration since April has enforced a "zero tolerance" policy on illegal entry, remanding even first time illegal entrants to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

The commission, in a notice released on Wednesday, said it was vacating the patents' cancellation and remanding the case back to the trade judge, Thomas Pender, for further proceedings.

The ruling is a victory for Zarda's estate, overruling a lower court on this issue and remanding the case to be relitigated with the Second Circuit Court's decision in mind.

Remanding the case back down to the lower court might be a way for the justices to avoid issuing a deadlocked decision where the justices are split along ideological lines.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the District of Columbia U.S. District Court, further accuses HHS of delaying the hospitals' administrative appeals before remanding them to private contractors without final adjudication authority.

Before remanding her to the custody of the US Marshals, Trenga told Manning that there was nothing "dishonorable" about fulfilling one's duties as a US citizen, and he hoped she'd consider that.

Weed needs to be legal everywhere, and you should be able to travel with that shit without worrying about some TSA dickhead spotting it and remanding you to a Supermax for 30 years for it.

Burwell, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate, remanding the issue to lower courts and instructing them to find a compromise that accommodates petitioners' religious liberty interests while protecting women's contraceptive coverage.

In 2016, AAM published a white paper, Direct Care of Collections Ethics, Guidelines and Recommendations, remanding the definition of "direct care" to the guidelines of the specific discipline the museum represents (art, science, history, children, zoos, and aquaria, etc.).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed a federal district court judge who had cited the so-called "local controversy" exception to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in remanding the case to state court.

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysian authorities have made the first arrest in a renewed probe into the multi-billion dollar scandal at state fund 1MDB, remanding a former aide of ousted prime minister Najib Razak to assist in investigations, Bernama news reported on Monday.

A two-judge 10th Circuit panel denied an emergency motion by Suncor Energy USA, its affiliates and Exxon Mobil Corp seeking to stay a ruling remanding the lawsuit to a Boulder state court pending resolution of the oil firms' appeal of the decision.

Backed onstage by other leaders of the race, including Frederick Douglass, the former senator Blanche K. Bruce and Richard T. Greener, Harvard's first black graduate, Langston intoned, "The Supreme Court would seem desirous of remanding us back to that old passed condition" of slavery.

Prosecutor Joan Illuzzi asked the court to remand Weinstein into custody given the seriousness of the latest charges brought against him in LA. Illuzzi said remanding him would ensure he attends court and suggested he was a flight risk because of his financial means.

Mandatory celibacy for priests was instituted then, and of course, we're talking about an arrangement of society that's so different from our own—so it was partly for priests to be able to do their duties, and partly about the land that priests had, remanding back to the churches, instead of to heirs.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned on Wednesday a state court ruling that had found Houston-based Southwestern Energy was liable for trespass by extracting gas from underneath neighboring land via wells on its own property, vacating and remanding a decision that had vexed the state's fracking industry by potentially exposing it to a new form of liability.

"We are disappointed that after years of back-and-forth the D.C. Circuit Court has ruled against reason in vacating certain key standards and remanding other portions of rules that, by most accounts, are reasonable and achievable despite the extensive technically sound information and test data provide to and relied upon by the EPA," Donna Harman, the group's president, said in a statement.

The decree of the circuit court remanding the case to the state court is affirmed.

The Court then considered other grounds upon which Abbott appealed, before reversing the judgment and remanding the matter for further proceedings.

1970) (per curiam), cert. denied, . See also O'Hair v. Paine (dismissing direct appeal of trial court order remanding from three-judge panel).

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion of a unanimous Court, which affirmed the Sixth Circuit's decision. He began by observing that "Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power of federal appellate courts to review district court orders remanding removed cases to state court." In 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d),. Congress provided that orders remanding civil cases to state court are not reviewable on appeal.

The Court announced its judgment in favor of the state on June 21, 2018, with the court vacating and remanding by a vote of 5–4.

Jenkins's reunion with Songbird was short-lived. Despite their feelings for each other, Jenkins left Songbird, once more remanding himself to police custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417, 373 S.W.3d 892 (Google Scholar) (reversing and remanding to reconsider trial court's denial of def't's motion for new trial); Baldwin v. State, 2010 Ark.

On April 17, 2018, the Court issued a per curiam opinion stating that the case was rendered moot and vacating and remanding the case back to the lower courts to dismiss the lawsuit.

The court found Elmer's presentation as "totally unbelievable" and rejected the appeal due to the danger of collusion. In July 2011, the remanding was extended until October 2011. On 25 July 2011, Elmer was released from custody.

Douglas would have upheld the lower court's ruling against the three laws, and also thought that the majority erred by remanding the other two laws back to state courts for interpretation (rather than holding them unconstitutional).Harrison, 360 U.S. at 184.

On March 2, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a summary disposition in the companion case of Summum v. Duchesne City. The Court vacated the Tenth Circuit opinion and remanding the case for an opinion consistent with Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009).

The Court released its decision on July 9, 2020, affirming the decision of the Second Circuit and remanding the case for continued review. The 7–2 decision affirmed that absolute immunity to the President is not granted either by the Supremacy Clause or Article II of the United States Constitution. Through these principles, the Court also held that the President enjoys no absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas which are directed at his private papers and that he is also not entitled to a heightened standard for the issuance of such a subpoena. In remanding the case to the District Court, the Court's order stated that "the President may raise further arguments as appropriate" to challenge the subpoena.

However, Souter and Breyer favored remanding the case to the Florida Supreme Court for the purpose of crafting specific guidelines for how to count disputed ballots, in contrast to the majority's decision to halt the recount altogether.Toobin, Jeffrey (2007). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court , pp.

The Sixth Circuit dismissed the petition, relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), which provides that with one inapplicable exception, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." The defendants then sought review by the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

Amir Ali presented oral argument for Garza before the Supreme Court, with Ken Jorgensen and Alon Kedem representing the State of Idaho and United States, respectively. The Court announced its judgment in favor of the petitioner on February 27, 2019, with the court reversing and remanding by a vote of 6-3..

In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court upheld the current redistricting maps as valid districts, outside of one district, Texas House District 90 near Fort Worth, which the court found was an "impermissible racial gerrymander", remanding the case to lower courts to correct the redistricting to eliminate the racial gerrymandering.

The Oregon Supreme Court denied review. The Supreme Court of the United States then granted certiorari, and in the 2007 decision vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment, remanding the case to the Oregon Court of Appeals for that court to reconsider the amount of the punitive damages award in light of State Farm v. Campbell.

Frost I, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), the Court ruled that the Park Service may only regulate "public" lands in Alaska, remanding the case back to the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court to decide whether the river in question (being "submerged land") is "public" or "non-public" land., slip op. at 12–15 (2016). In Sturgeon v.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Sonia Sotomayor, dissented. Justice Ginsburg wrote that she agreed with much of the Court’s opinion but saw "no utility" in remanding the case back to the Ninth Circuit. Justice Ginsburg saw the many inaccuracies published by Spokeo as concretely harming Robins and, as such, she would have simply affirmed.

Brightwood College is accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS). On December 12, 2016, ACICS was derecognized by the U.S. Department of Education. April 2018, this action was under review, following a court ruling remanding the December 2016 decision to current Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. Accreditation was finally lost December 2018.

Besides the parade ground, several post buildings survive as school facilities. These include the sentry and guard houses, barracks, officers quarters, the bakery, hospital and post headquarters, situated along Ringgold Avenue, Lee Circle, 12th Cavalry and F Troop streets. The Rio Grande City United States Army Reserve Center in the only remanding military presence at the Fort Ringgold area.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's entry of summary judgement in favor of Kremer, reversed the anti-SLAPP motion to strike the state law claims and remanded the ACPA claim for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on April 4, 2005, affirming in part, reversing in part and remanding the District Court's decision.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, and were rebuffed in 2014. In an opinion by Barrington Daniels Parker, Jr., the Second Circuit largely affirmed the lower court's findings of fair use for accessibility and search, remanding only to consider whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue about library preservation copies. The remaining claims were settled on January 6, 2015.

After Pearl was killed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the Pakistani government came under strong American diplomatic pressure to capture the kidnappers and killers. In February 2002, cornered by the Pakistan Omar Sheikh turned himself to Brigadier Shah, who then was the Home Secretary of the Pakistani Punjab region. Shah kept Sheikh for a full week before remanding him to police custody.

It was decided on April 2, 2014, by a 5–4 vote,. reversing the decision below and remanding. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito invalidated "aggregate contribution limits" (amounts one can contribute over the two-year period) as violating the First Amendment. Justice Thomas provided the necessary fifth vote, but concurred separately in the judgment while arguing that all contribution limits are unconstitutional.

In a 6-2 vote, Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion vacating the lower judgment and remanding. The Supreme Court held that the actual malice standard for media reports on public figures did not apply. Firestone was not a public figure as defined by prior precedent. The Court also held the Florida judgment invalid because the court awarded damages without determining fault.

Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the Court. He recited the facts as above stated and continued: We think the order remanding the case was well made. 1\. Mr. Sully is the only defendant who is not a citizen of Iowa. The other defendants, against whom relief is sought, are the railroad company, the trustees of Prairie Township, and the treasurer of the county.

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March 2009. In June 2009, the Court found for Caperton and Harman Mining, remanding the case back to the West Virginia Supreme Court. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

645, 852 P.2d 74 (1993) Justice Levinson, joined by Chief Justice Moon, wrote the plurality opinion,Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 48 (Haw. 1993) though Court of Appeals Judge (filling in for a recused Justice) James S. Burns wrote a concurrence of the judgment reaching the same conclusion as the plurality opinion, thus remanding the case back to the trial court.

He was convicted on arson and the lesser offense of second degree murder. The verdict was silent on the greater offense. His conviction was overturned due to the appellate court deciding there wasn't enough evidence, remanding for a new trial. At the second trial, he was tried again with arson, first and second degree murder, convicted on the greater offense and sentenced to death.

The Court of Appeals referred to the Nigerian litigation as Zango v. Pfizer (Zango litigation). The Zango litigation had recently been dismissed in Nigeria. The court declined to take judicial notice of the "Zango litigation", instead opting to vacate the district court's dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens and remanding the case to the district court to consider the implications of the "Zango litigation" on its forum non conveniens analysis.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the OSH Act preempts any state law that "constitutes, in a direct, clear and substantial way, regulation of worker health and safety," unless the Secretary of Labor has explicitly approved the law pursuant to § 18 of the OSH Act. In remanding, the court did not consider which, if any, of the provisions would be pre-empted.

West was widely praised for his protection of the rights of prisoners in litigation challenging the constitutionality of conditions of confinement in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. In 1975, West ruled that Angola prison conditions "shocked the conscience" and entered an injunction designed to improve the penitentiary and decentralize the Louisiana prison system. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, remanding for determination of specific inmate population and security staffing requirements. Williams v.

On September 26, 2007, Judge Edward Lodge of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted litigant party Western Watersheds Project summary judgment remanding the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 90-day finding denying conservationist parties' listing petition. The petition sought legal protection for pygmy rabbit as an endangered or threatened species.Standard for Listing Petitions & Evaluation of Threats to the Pygmy Rabbit. Idaho US District Court.

Swgyert, Joel Flaum, Thomas E. Fairchild heard oral argument in the case in September 1984. They returned over a year later with a 2-1 decision reversing the conviction and remanding the case to district court for a new trial. Swygert wrote for himself and Flaum. He rejected Schmuck's attack on the conviction, citing the circuit's recent holding in Galloway(a decision from which he himself had dissentedGalloway, 166–169.) and declining to overrule it.

Sully v. Drennan, 113 U.S. 287 (1885), was an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa in the United States remanding to the state court a case which had been removed from the state into the circuit court. The suit was brought originally in the district court of the state by James N. Drennan and others, taxpayers of Prairie Township, in the County of Mahaska..

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, reversing and remanding. The Second Circuit found that the land qualified as Indian Territory, which meant it was exempt from state and local taxation. Justice Ginsburg's decision never overturned that finding. Instead, Justice Ginsburg held that the OIN purchase of the land did not revive its tribal sovereignty over the land because almost 200 years lapsed where the land was not under OIN control.

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the Opinion of the Court, remanding the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, while Associate Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment. Thomas's opinion focuses on the separation of executive and legislative powers. > Today, the Court has abandoned all pretense of enforcing a qualitative > distinction between legislative and executive power.

Before he could do so, the defendant, who had no knowledge of the plaintiff's actions, found the heaps and hauled them off to his own land. The plaintiff sued the defendant in trover demanding payment for the price of the manure. The trial court held for the defendant, stating he owed nothing to the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Court of Connecticut held for the plaintiff, remanding the case for a new trial.

Emancipation legislation banned planters' use of the whip and the state formally took on the responsibility for disciplining laborers. However, planters could use the remanding of apprentices to workhouses as a means of exercising control over former slaves.Claudius K. Fergus Revolutionary Emancipation: Slavery and Abolitionism in the British West Indies, (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2013), 175. The conditions within workhouses were grim and apprentices were subjected to hard labor and regular physical punishment.

Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U.S. 73 (1885), was Supreme Court case determining whether a probate case from Michigan should be moved to federal court and, if so, which federal court should hear it. The court issued a writ of error on the judgment of the Eastern District of Michigan federal court for remanding a case back to the state court and determined that was indeed the appropriate federal court to hear the case..

There Bernard petitioned Pope Benedict VIII to create a see in Besalú. He also accused the nuns of Sant Joan of impropriety and because they refused to appear before a papal tribunal, Benedict suppressed their convent, calling it a meretrius de Venus (brothel) and establishing instead some monks under the rule of Aachen and remanding to Bernard the feudal dues of the abbey. By a bull directed to the new bishop, Benedict created Bernard's desired bishopric.

The satirical script he wrote to recognize the manipulative election of the government of the time, was enacted at this very stage. On 24 August 2007, Malay Bhowmick protested against the government's anti-human rights activities. As a repercussion of this protest, special forces of the Army backed up by the caretaker government arrested him along with few other teachers of Rajshahi and Dhaka University. Upon remanding him, they tortured him and sent him to jail.

The arson destroyed three pick up trucks including a 2000 Silverado. Luers might have received a comparable sentence if he had not been convicted of an earlier attempted arson as well. Luers was initially sentenced to 22 years, 8 months in prison. Supporters argued that his sentence was excessive, because no one was injured and property damage was estimated at only $40,000 The Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the sentence in 2007, remanding the case to the Lane County circuit court for resentencing.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a statement respecting the Supreme Court's decision vacating and remanding the ruling of the Ninth Circuit. Ginsburg's statement notes that campaign finance limits regarding political parties in Alaska are more lenient than the limits on contributions to individual donors, unlike the laws in Vermont. Ginsburg expressed concern that Alaska is prone to be influenced excessively by the fossil fuel industry because it is a sparsely populated state that receives much of its revenue from the fossil fuel industry.

Under a statutory provision, Kernochan came in due time and, alleging himself to be a holder of the bonds, the default as to the unknown owner was set aside and he was permitted to answer. As to the other defendants, they were now out of the case, and Kernochan being a citizen of another state, removed the case into the circuit court of the United States. The difference between the two cases was obvious. The judgment of the circuit court, remanding the case, was affirmed.

McQueen was caught stealing hubcaps by the police and handed over to his stepfather, who beat him severely, ending the fight by throwing McQueen down a flight of stairs. McQueen looked up at his stepfather and said, "You lay your stinking hands on me again and I swear, I'll kill you." After the incident, McQueen's stepfather persuaded his mother to sign a court order stating that McQueen was incorrigible, remanding him to the California Junior Boys Republic in Chino. Here, McQueen began to change and mature.

In 2010, Arizona enacted a so-called "ethnic studies" ban, which prevented students in predominantly Latino school districts from participating in a program that incorporated "historical and contemporary Mexican American contributions into coursework and classroom studies." A group of plaintiffs challenged the law in federal court. When the case went up on appeal, Judge Rakoff, sitting by designation on the Ninth Circuit, wrote an opinion reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants and remanding plaintiffs' equal protection claim for trial. Arce v.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court, reversing and remanding. An Indian tribe has sovereignty and is immune from suit in a state court unless that immunity has been specifically abrogated by the United States Congress or clearly waived by the tribe. In this case, the Potawatomie Tribe entered into a contract, using a contract form that the tribe provided, that agreed to arbitration and to having the dispute heard in state court. This is a clear waiver of the tribe's sovereign immunity.

Our holding > extends no further than this. When the record in this case moves beyond the > pleadings stage, the City is, of course, free to argue anew that one or both > of those exceptions do apply, or that some other exception to the warrant > requirement might apply.Taylor, No. 17-2126 (Amended) at 10. Thus, while the court reversed the District Court’s order, dismissing the case on the pleadings and remanding it for further proceedings, it left the ultimate issue of the constitutionality of chalking undecided.

Wise, 550 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1977). giving rise to a right to resell the copy under the first-sale doctrine. As such, Autodesk could not pursue an action for copyright infringement against Vernor, who sought to resell used versions of its software on eBay. The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which issued a decision on September 10, 2010, reversing the first-sale doctrine ruling and remanding for further proceedings on the misuse of copyright claim.

On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of the federal officials, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding by a vote of 4-2. Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined fully by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and partially by Justice Clarence Thomas, found that the implied cause of action created by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971) should not be extended to reach the federal officials' detention policy.The Supreme Court, 2016 Term — Leading Cases, 131 Harv.

Although Al-Timimi was convicted in 2005, his direct appeal is still ongoing. In late 2005, Al- Timimi's appellate attorneys sought discovery on whether Al-Timimi had been subjected to illegal wiretaps in light of the then-recently disclosed NSA warrantless surveillance program. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit responded by remanding the case back to the district court, giving broad latitude to the trial judge. The Justice Department did not confirm or deny the use of NSA wiretaps against Al-Timimi.

In those initial decisions, the MSPB affirmed the employing agency's decision 9,348 times (nearly 98% of the time), modified the employing agency's decision or mitigated the penalty imposed 21 times, and reversed the employing Agency's decision 169 times. The Presidentially appointed Board members granted review of 170 initial decisions, remanding the case for further review in 112 cases, reversing the initial decisions of MSPB Administrative Judges and Administrative Law Judges in 30 cases, affirming the initial decision in 18 cases, and taking another action in 10 cases.

Bruce Weyhrauch's Supreme Court challenge to the Honest services fraud statute. His case was decided on June 24, 2010, in association with the Skilling v. United States and Conrad Black case decisions. While the Court overturned the Skilling conviction, stating that the Honest services fraud statute was not applicable to private citizens, the Court upheld, but narrowed the application of the Honest services fraud statute by stating that it was applicable to public officials only, and remanding Weyhrauch's conviction to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court held that a serious jurisdictional issue had been brought to the court's attention by legal briefs, forcing it to vacate the appellate court's decision, remanding the case back to the appellate court, and asking the appellate court to consider the jurisdictional issue.Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Ben Cooper, Inc., 498 U.S. 964 (1990). The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals considered the jurisdictional issue, found in Cooper's favor, and reinstated its original ruling in January 1991.

Included with the motion was jail documentation establishing that Stoeckley was originally confined to the jail in Pickens, South Carolina, not Greenville, South Carolina, as Britt had claimed. Also included were custody commitment and release forms indicating that agents other than Britt transported Stoeckley to the trial. MacDonald appealed the district court's denial of his claim to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, remanding MacDonald's claims back to the District Court with instructions for consideration.

On remand, the District Court again ruled that McPherson's statements did not fall under protected speech, which, once again, the Appellate Court reversed. In the Appellate Court's opinion, McPherson's comment had addressed a matter of "public concern," which required that a balancing consideration be invoked, weighing McPherson's free speech rights against the state's interest in maintaining "efficiency and discipline in the workplace." The Court of Appeals overturned the District Court's opinion, remanding the case to determine an appropriate remedy. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

A panel rejected the latter argument but agreed that the jury should have been allowed to consider the lesser charge, reversing the conviction and remanding the case for a new trial. The government appealed that decision to an en banc panel of the circuit, which restored the conviction, holding that the odometer tampering was not "inherently related" to the mail fraud. Since other appellate circuits had preferred a different test for lesser included charges, Schmuck successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Blackmun ruled for the government on both questions.

The court consolidated them and indicated that they would be set for oral argument sometime in March 2020. The Second Circuit's mandate was stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in the case. The Court's decision in the case is believed to be a likely landmark ruling on how far presidents may resist subpoenas or other demands for information from the Congress and from prosecutors. On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its 7–2 ruling, vacating the D.C. Circuit's decision and remanding the case for further review.

Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed. Sporkin found some "crucial distinctions"Hastings v. U.S., 802 F.Supp.

At the meeting, only I. H. Usmani protested, believing that the country had neither the facilities or talent to carry out such an ambitious and technologically remanding project, whilst Salam remained quiet. Here, Bhutto entrusted Salam and appointed Munir Khan as Chairman of PAEC, and head of the atomic bomb program, as Salam had supported Khan. A few months after the meeting, Salam, Khan, and Riazuddin, met with Bhutto in his residence where the scientists briefed him about the nuclear weapons program. After the meeting, Salam established the 'Theoretical Physics Group' (TPG) in PAEC.

In June 2003, the Supreme Court issued a GVR Order, remanding the case for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's then-recent decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which held that a similar Texas law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Attorney General's office continued to pursue the matter, seeking to distinguish the Kansas law from the Texas law. The Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the earlier decision 2-1, but the Kansas Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Limon and overturned his conviction in 2005.

Wisconsin Energy Corp., Northern States Power Co. Agree to Terminate Merger Proceedings, PRNewswire, May 16, 1997 On May 16, 1997 both CEOs announced that the boards of directors of both companies had voted that day to terminate the merger plan. Howard stated that the problem was that the regulatory agencies were changing their merger policies as they were considering the companies' filing. In particular, Howard blamed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which had issued a decision earlier in the week remanding the case back to the companies, for further negotiation among themselves.

The Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota sued in federal court to overturn those regulations. The district courts agreed with them, but upon appeal, the Eighth Circuit consolidated the two cases into one and reversed the judgments, remanding the cases for entry of judgments in favor of the United States. This decision was at odds with decisions from the Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, which had all previously ruled that residents may count as students for the purpose of FICA taxes. The Eighth Circuit's ruling created a circuit split, and on appeal, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Section 35 and Section 36 are similar in their powers to Section 2 assessment orders and Section 3 treatment orders respectively, but are used for persons awaiting trial for a serious crime and provide courts with an alternative to remanding a mentally disordered person in prison. The order for Section 35 can be made by a Crown Court or Magistrates' Court, whilst Section 36 can be enacted only by a Crown Court. Courts can enact either of these sections on the medical recommendation of one Section 12 approved doctor. Both these sections are rarely used in practice.

Kagan agreed with the majority in that the HHS and other departments did have authority to issue new rules, but was not sure if the proposed rules met the APA challenge and agreed with remanding the case to the lower courts for further review on this matter. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Ginsburg wrote critically "Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree." This was Justice Ginsburg last written opinion for the Court before her passing on September 18.

On February 29, 2008, the Iraqi Court of Cassation (the appeals court) vacated Munaf's conviction and death sentence, remanding it to the lower court and ordering Munaf to remain in custody. The Court of Cassation found numerous irregularities in the lower court proceedings, including that the lower court failed to ascertain the role of Munaf and other defendants in the kidnapping and failed to document the statements of the kidnap victims. The Court of Cassation vacated all decisions of the lower court and remanded the case to the lower court for retrial, directing that Munaf and the other defendants remain in custody.

Lamone (2018).. The Court issued its decision in Rucho and Lamone on June 27, 2019. In the 5–4 majority opinion, the Court ruled that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts", vacating and remanding the lower courts' decisions with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to pass laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering.

The settlement received significant criticism on a wide variety of grounds, including antitrust, privacy, and inadequacy of the proposed classes of authors and publishers. The settlement was eventually rejected,770 F.Supp.2d 666 (SDNY March 22, 2011). and the publishers settled with Google soon after. The Authors Guild continued its case, and in 2011 their proposed class was certified. Google appealed that decision, with a number of amici asserting the inadequacy of the class, and the Second Circuit rejected the class certification in July 2013, remanding the case to the District Court for consideration of Google's fair use defense.

As the Ninth Circuit decided in United States v. Weyhrauch in 2008, > Because laws governing official conduct differ from state to state, > conditioning mail fraud convictions on state law means that conduct in one > state might violate the mail fraud statute, whereas identical conduct in a > neighboring state would not. Congress has given no indication it intended > the criminality of official conduct under federal law to depend on > geography. The defendant in that case, Bruce Weyhrauch, appealed that decision to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor, remanding the case back to the Ninth Circuit, where federal charges were eventually dropped.

A series of brutal murders followed by a mysterious blackout leads to an investigation of the growing underground mutant community, called the Tunnel Rats. Calling themselves "Those Who Live in Darkness", the tunnelers claim responsibility for the blackout and state that they want the city to leave them alone. In recent months, police and social services have put pressure on the Tunnel Rats by destroying their homes and remanding their children into state custody. Tensions with the Tunnel Rats come to a head just as Bishop and Officer Ortega manage to track down The Worm, a hideously mutated young man who is seeking revenge for being cast out by his parents.

Although the prosecution was careful to avoid personal confrontation with Kunstler, who frequently charmed the jury with jokes, on one occasion Kunstler provoked a shouting match with the lead prosecutor, allegedly to wake up a sleeping jury member. The jury convicted Hill of murder and Pernasilice of attempted assault. When Kunstler protested that the defendants would risk being murdered due to the judges remanding them, King threatened to send Kunstler with them. New York Governor Hugh Carey granted executive clemency to Hill and the other inmates in 1976, even though Hill's name was not on the recommended list of pardons delivered to the governor and his appeals were still pending.

He also introduces evidence that Shaughnessy and Yancy had covered up evidence of Rushman molesting another young man. After Venable questions him harshly during cross-examination, Stampler turns into "Roy" in open court and attacks her, threatening to snap her neck if anyone comes near him. He is subdued by courthouse marshals and rushed back to his holding cell. The judge dismisses the jury in favor of a bench trial and then finds Stampler not guilty by reason of insanity, remanding him to a maximum security mental hospital. Venable is fired for losing the case, and for allowing Rushman’s crimes to be publicly exposed.

Therefore, the trial should have been suspended until such an evaluation could be made. # Even if the petitioner's right to be present at the trial is a right that could be waived, there was an insufficient inquiry to provide a basis for deciding the merits of the issue of such a waiver. # The petitioner's due process rights would not be adequately protected by remanding the case for a psychiatric examination to determine whether he was, in fact, competent to stand trial in 1969. However, the State is free to retry him if he is competent to be tried at the time of another trial.

On July 21, 2009, the Superior Court of California ruled that the diocese cannot leave the Episcopal Church and that Lamb is the head of the diocese. Schofield was found not to be the head of the diocese and was ordered to relinquish all money, property and any assumed authority.Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication, Lamb v Scofield, Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, Central Division, July 21, 2009. Retrieved August 26, 2014 However, on November 11, 2010, the lower court's ruling was overturned by the 5th appellate court, remanding the property issues to be retried by the lower court under neutral principles.

This took into account the language of the Comcast/NBCUniversal MOU that Allen claimed established Comcast's motivation. The other "but-for" test was suggested by Comcast, in that if there was no race issue involved, that Comcast would still not have entered a deal with Allen. The Court released its opinion on March 23, 2020. In a unanimous decision vacating the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanding the case to be reheard, the Court sided with Comcast's "but-for" test, in that Allen had to have shown that race was the sole deciding factor for the case, rather than the possibility that it may have only been a motivating factor.

Because of the change in the law, the Supreme Court had responded to the school district's appeal by vacating the first ruling and remanding the case to the district court. The district court again found for Schempp. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court again, and, on appeal, the case was consolidated with a similar Maryland case launched by O'Hair. The district court ruling in the second trial, in striking down the practices and the statute requiring them, made specific findings of fact that the children's attendance at Abington Senior High School was compulsory, and that the practice of reading 10 verses from the Bible was also compelled by law.

") The Court will refuse to hear a case, however, if an adequate and independent state ground supports the decision. By deferring to state court decisions based on an adequate and independent state ground, the doctrine addresses Brandeis' concern of federal judicial interference with state authority. The doctrine is generally grounded in efforts to avoid advisory opinions and unnecessary constitutional rulings,Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1071 (1983) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (avoidance doctrine also supports practice of remanding a case to state court for clarification of whether judgment rests on an adequate and independent state ground) ("We do not sit to expound our understanding of the Constitution to interested listeners in the legal community; we sit to resolve disputes.

His performance in the first team earned him Bury FC player-of-the-month for December. With 21 appearance in the first team, Kennedy signed a two-year contract with Bury. Kennedy then became Bury's first choice left back, starting all but one of Bury's remanding fixtures in the 2003–04 season, finish the season with 27 league appearances in his first full season at the club. At the end of the 2003–04 season, Kennedy was awarded the Young Player of the Year award. Despite being linked a move away from Bury during and after the 2003–04 season, Kennedy stayed at the club for the 2004–05 season and was given a number three shirt.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and Lozman again successfully filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. During oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts stated: "I found the video pretty chilling. I mean, the fellow is up there for about fifteen seconds, and the next thing he knows he's being led off in handcuffs, speaking in a very calm voice the whole time". On June 18, 2018, in an eight-to-one opinion authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Supreme Court once again ruled in Lozman’s favor, vacating the Eleventh Circuit opinion and remanding to the appellate court with instructions to determine whether the City acted with animus in Lozman’s arrest.

On April 30, 1951, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of the anti-fascists, reversing and remanding by a vote of 5-3. The Court failed to produce a majority opinion, instead offering six different opinions totaling seventy pages. Justice Harold Hitz Burton, joined only by Justice William O. Douglas, wrote the controlling plurality opinion. Burton accepted as true all of the allegations made by the anti-fascists because they had never been contested by Justice Department. According to Burton, there was standing to sue for a violation of “the right of a bona fide charitable origination to carrying on its work, free from defamatory statements”. Burton then determined that the Attorney General’s behavior had been ”patently arbitrary”.

The city harbour is located along the Kristiansandsfjorden and the island of Odderøya. The borough has three malls and three high schools. The closest public junior high is "Grim Skole" and the closest elementary is Tordenskjoldsgate Skole and is the only remanding elementary in Kvadraturen. The Sørlandet Hospital Kristiansand is also located in the borough, in the district of Eg. The main city centre was established as a city on 5 July 1641 by King Christian IV. The city became a self-governing municipality under the formannskapsdistrikt law on 1 January 1838. On 1 July 1921, a neighboring part of the municipality of Oddernes (population: 2,164) was transferred from Oddernes to the city of Kristiansand.

The Court announced judgment in favor of the accused on May 29, 2018, reversing and remanding the case back to lower courts. The Court ruled 8–1 that the automobile exemption does not include the home or curtilage and that vehicles that are stored within the home's curtilage cannot be searched without a warrant. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by all but Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion agreeing with the decision but questioning if the Court had the right to force states to suppress incriminating evidence that was obtained unconstitutionally, as that would be akin to forcing states to follow the federal exclusionary rule.

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of Spokeo, vacating and remanding by a vote of 6-2. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan, wrote that the circuit below had failed to establish that Robins had standing to file the lawsuit under Article Three of the United States Constitution. The Court first explained that the Constitution's Case or Controversy Clause requires any plaintiff to allege an injury-in-fact that is "concrete and particularized". While the Ninth Circuit identified particular harms to Robins, it erred, according to the Court, by not also determining that those harms were "concrete".

In August 2016, the full en banc Eleventh Circuit again rejected the petition by a vote of 6–5, with Circuit Judge William H. Pryor Jr. writing for the majority and Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan and Jill A. Pryor writing dissents. The Court announced judgment in favor of the prisoner on April 17, 2018, reversing and remanding to the lower court by a vote of 6–3. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The Court held that the circuit had erred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 by failing to consider the reasoning in the lower, earlier, written, state court opinion.

In May 2012, the jury in this case found that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents, and the trial judge ruled that the structure of the Java APIs used by Google was not copyrightable. The parties agreed to zero dollars in statutory damages for a small amount of copied code. On May 9, 2014, the Federal Circuit partially reversed the district court ruling, ruling in Oracle's favor on the copyrightability issue, and remanding the issue of fair use to the district court. In December 2015, Google announced that the next major release of Android (Android Nougat) would switch to OpenJDK, which is the official open- source implementation of the Java platform, instead of using the now- discontinued Apache Harmony project as its runtime.

In an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, he elaborated on the politicization of intelligence on which he wrote in the Foreign Affairs article. Pillar said that the Silberman- Robb commission did not go into as much depth on the "differential treatment that different draft intelligence assessments get as they go through the procedure of being coordinated and approved. And you have to remember, anything that sees light of day as a published—published in the sense of a classified paper—intelligence assessment goes through usually multiple levels of review, various supervisors, branch chiefs and so on, weighing in, approving or disapproving, remanding, forcing changes. That can be a speedy process or it can be a long, very torturous process".

Judge Neil Thomas, to whom the Tennessee civil cases have been specially assigned, held that Marsh had waived his Fifth Amendment privilege upon pleading guilty to more than 700 felony counts in the State of Georgia. After consulting with his client's criminal law lawyers, Ken Poston and Ron Cordova, Stuart James argued that the circumstances of the claim permitted Marsh to continue to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. Judge Thomas' ruling that Marsh had waived his privilege was appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals with the Court of Appeals reversing and remanding the issue of the Fifth Amendment to Judge Thomas for further consideration. The Court of Appeals held that Marsh could assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in any testimony subject to review by Judge Thomas.

By mid-October 2013, a petition was filed in the Madras High Court by B. Rajeswari alleging that Arrambam producer A. M. Rathnam had not returned money borrowed from the financier and remanding the film's release to be stalled until the dues were met. Rathnam however clarified that the film was not produced by him but by A Raghuram's Sri Sathya Sai Movies. A day prior to the planned release, film producer K. Kannan filed a suit in the City Civil Court seeking to restrain the film from releasing as he had already commenced the production of a film with a similar title, Ini Dhan Arambam that had been registered with Film and Television Producers Guild of South of India.

Having announced its ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a mandate on July 9, 1880 remanding the case to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and ordered that the court reverse the decision of the circuit court and remand the case for further proceedings. By August 17, 1880, the Supreme Court of Appeals had done as ordered, setting aside the verdict and sentence of the second trial, and reversing the ruling of the circuit court that had denied to Strauder the removal of the case to federal court. On remand before the circuit court, the orders of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Appeals were entered into the record on Saturday, August 21, 1880 and the case ordered to be removed to the U.S. district court.

The ruling determined that, since one of the parties was from a different state, that there was federal jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The high court also found that the language of the removal statute is that suits shall be removed into the circuit court of the district where such suits are pending. Undoubtedly this means where they are pending at the time of removal. This suit was not then pending in the Western District of Michigan, but in the county of Jackson, which is in the Eastern District of that state. The court’s opinion was that the case was properly removed from the circuit court of Jackson county into the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Michigan, and that that court erred in remanding it.

The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office. Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.

They were among the first same-sex couples in the United States to apply for a marriage license, causing a flurry of media coverage and leading to a lawsuit, Singer v. Hara, which ended in 1974 with a unanimous rejection by the Washington State Court of Appeals. Singer worked as a typist for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but his taste for women's clothing and his open disclosure of his homosexuality resulted in him being fired after one year in 1972, despite the protests of co-workers. He sued the EEOC with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor in 1974, with the U.S. Supreme Court remanding the case back to the Ninth Circuit, essentially instructing it to rule in ben Miriam's favor, resulting in his receiving back pay from the entire span of the lawsuit.

After their arrest and trial, the men were cleared of sexual aggression charges and instead found guilty of sexual abuse because the prosecution could not prove they employed violence to subjugate the victim. Thousands took to the streets in Pamplona and Spain to manifest their disapproval of the verdict. The inquiry of the aggression uncovered footage shared on social media recorded by the perpetrators in Pozoblanco, Andalusia, showing an unresponsive woman lying on their van subject to groping and derision, which gave rise to another lawsuit. In a sentence handed down on 21 June 2019, the Spanish Supreme Court reversed the lower court and affirmed that the men were guilty of rape, remanding José Ángel Prenda, Jesús Escudero, Alfonso Jesús Cabezuelo, Antonio Manuel Guerrero and Ángel Boza to 15 years in prison; Guerrero was given an additional two years for stealing the victim's mobile phone.

The Court announced judgment on June 26, 2018 in favor of the challengers. In the 5–4 decision, split between the conservative and liberal justices, the Court ruled that both notices required by the FACT Act violated the free speech principles of the First Amendment, reversing the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanding the case there for review. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Gorsuch. Thomas identified that the FACT Act targeted the speaker of the language demanded by the Act rather than the speech itself, which conflicted with the First Amendment. He wrote that the FACT Act "imposes a government- scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement that is wholly disconnected from the State’s informational interest", and because it only applied to a specific classification of facilities, it could be seen as compelled speech for those in the CPCs that disagreed with the state's stance on abortion.

Though Justice Brennan had begun his Supreme Court career voting with Justice Frankfurter about half the time, the Irvin case marked the end of a meaningful relationship between the two justices.. Frankfurter convinced a distinguished Harvard Law professor, Henry M. Hart, Jr., to focus on the case in the law school's Harvard Law Review as a means of character-assassinating Justice Brennan.. Despite ideological divides, when the case came back to the Supreme Court nearly two years later, the Court managed to write a unanimous opinion again remanding the case to state court, due to the original trial depriving Irvin of Fourteenth Amendment due process. Justice Clark's majority opinion underscored the need for impartiality in the jury: "In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, 'indifferent' jurors." Justice Frankfurter wrote a concurrence on the media and its coverage's way of preventing jurors from delivering impartial verdicts.

In an opinion issued on February 22, 2019, Judge Timothy J. Kelly granted summary judgment in favor of three of the individual plaintiffs: the two former ABA employees and the AILA employee. Kelly rejected as "nonsense" the Department's argument that its denials did not amount to final agency action, finding that the legal and practical effects of the Department's denial notices were significant given the immense impact on the plaintiffs' ability to plan their careers and finances, even if they had not yet applied for final loan forgiveness. Kelly further determined that evidence produced by the plaintiffs demonstrated conclusively that the Department had created the "primary purpose" and "school-like setting" standards years after issuing its 2008 regulation and without providing any of the public notice required under the APA, thus rendering the changes arbitrary and capricious. As a result, he issued an order vacating those standards and remanding the denial notices to the Department for reconsideration in light of his opinion.

Although the Court acknowledged the importance of the attorney–client privilege, it reasoned that there are many other important rights that litigants must wait to vindicate until after the entry of final judgment. Appellate courts can remedy improper disclosure of privileged materials the same way erroneous evidentiary rulings are remedied: by vacating judgment and remanding the matter back to the district court for a new trial in which the protected material and its fruits are excluded. The Court also reasoned that the possibility of a disclosure order and a delayed potential appeal is unlikely to interfere with attorney–client communications. The Court noted that parties subject to an adverse disclosure order regarding attorney–client privilege have other options besides a collateral order appeal, such as the certification and acceptance of an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), petitioning for a writ of mandamus, or by defying the order and incurring court-imposed sanctions such as a contempt of court citation which is immediately appealable.

Ct. of Appeals, May 3, 2011. Hear: argument by Chris Winter (Crag Law Center) attorney for Greenpeace v. Cole plaintiffs generally, and at 13:20 concerning Traitors Cove. Recording includes arguments by Winters and federal attorney Charles Scott, and Winter's rebuttal. The 9th Circuit panel ruled unanimously on August 2, 2011, in favor of the plaintiffs, remanding the four timber sale decisions to the Forest Service and giving guidance for what is necessary during reanalysis of impacts to deer.Memorandum. Issued unanimously by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel of Judges Alarcon, Graber and Bybee. August 2, 2011. The ruling says in part: > We do not think that USFS has adequately explained its decision to approve > the four logging projects in the Tongass. ... USFS has failed to explain how > it ended up with a table that identifies 100 deer per square mile as a > maximum carrying capacity, but allows 130 deer per square mile as a > potential carrying capacity.

In 2018, the US Supreme Court decided to hear an appeal of Ninth Circuit decision in, Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, 10-cv-04809, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose) that allowed a class action settlement that awarded $2 million to the plaintiff's attorneys, $5,000 to each of the handful of named plaintiffs, and no monetary award to an estimated 129 million class members, instead citing the cy-près doctrine to give a handful of privacy groups (including all three plaintiffs' attorneys' alma maters and several groups already supported by defendant Google) a share of $6 million rather than any monetary award to class members (who would receive approximately four cents). The case, Frank v. Gaos, alleges that the award was not "fair, reasonable, and adequate" as required by Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and was heard by the Supreme Court in March 2019. The Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the case, instead remanding the case to the Ninth Circuit to review whether the plaintiffs had standing.

On February 21, 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously delivered judgment in favor of the church, affirming and remanding to the lower court. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court of eight justices.. Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case because he was not on the Court when the case was argued. The Court found that the government was unable to detail the government's compelling interest in barring religious usage of Hoasca when applying strict scrutiny as required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Court first found that the standard under RFRA for a preliminary injunction is the same as at trial, just as it would be for a constitutional claim.. Disagreeing with the District Court, the Supreme Court found that Hoasca is covered under the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which is implemented by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).. The Court rejected the District Court's reliance on the official commentary to the convention, reasoning that the United Nations had incorrectly interpreted the treaty when it found that tea made from plants is a naturally occurring material.

This section related to the remand of a defendant for medical examination and to the requirement of such an examination on committing a defendant for trial on bail. The requirements of sections 18(1) and (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 did not apply to the adjournment of a trial by a magistrates' court under section 26 of this Act, for the purpose of enabling a medical examination and report to be made on the defendant, if it appeared to the court that it would be impracticable to obtain such a report without remanding the defendant in custody.The Criminal Justice Act 1967, section 18(6) From 1967, section 2(2) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 (as substituted by section 32(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967) applied to a request to a registered medical practitioner to make a written or oral report on the medical condition of an offender or defendant, made by a court in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 26 of this Act.The Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952, section 2(3)(b) (as substituted by section 32(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 Section 26(1) was amended by section 103(1) of, and paragraph 10 of Schedule 6 to, the Criminal Justice Act 1967.