Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (4979)	12/6/2000 5:33:13 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 6710

I think your sentence is constructed correctly, but I have to admit I don't know the difference between "vacate" and "reverse," in this context. I do understand "remand." When a higher court overturns a lower court's decision, they don't always remand. A remand is a direction to the lower court to do something over. The most common form of remand is to have a new trial. I don't recall ever seeing before a remand to the lower court to redecide its decision but obviously there is precedent. Sometimes when a case is reversed, it's over, and there won't be a remand. It really depends on the facts of the case. For example, if the plaintiff prevailed on a legal theory that the appellate court threw out, then the plaintiff can't have a new trial.