Legal Remedies Commons^™

The Remand Power And The Supreme Court's Role, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

"Reversed and remanded." Or "vacated and remanded." These familiar words, often found at the end of an appellate decision, emphasize that an appellate court's conclusion that the lower court erred generally does not end the litigation. The power to remand for further proceedings rather than wrap up a case is useful for appellate courts because they may lack the institutional competence to bring the case to a final resolution (as when new factual findings are necessary) or lack an interest in the fact-specific work of applying a newly announced legal standard to the particular circumstances at hand. The modern Supreme …

Justices Make The Tough-- But Right-- Call In Cross-Border Shooting Case, A. Benjamin Spencer

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The State Of Exactions, Timothy M. Mulvaney

William & Mary Law Review

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Supreme Court slightly expanded the range of land use permitting situations in which heightened judicial scrutiny is appropriate in a constitutional “exaction” takings case. In crafting a vision of regulators as strategic extortionists of private property interests, though, Koontz prompted many takings observers to predict that the case would provide momentum for a more significant expansion of such scrutiny in takings cases involving land use permit conditions moving forward, and perhaps even an extension into other regulatory contexts, as well.

Five years on, this Article evaluates the extent to which …

Understanding Prophylactic Remedies Through The Looking Glass Of Bush V. Gore, Tracy A. Thomas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Using the context of Bush v. Gore as a vehicle for discussion, Professor Thomas examines the use and legitimacy of prophylactic remedies. In this Article, Professor Thomas advances the argument that the broad prophylactic remedy provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore may be viewed as contrary to the law of remedies in that it operated to negate, rather than enforce, legal rights. In particular, prophylactic remedies which are untailored and unachievable, as in Bush v. Gore, threaten the legitimacy of prophylaxis. Professor Thomas argues that the use of prophylactic remedies itself is not problematic, but concludes …