Also known as: remand · remanded · remanding · remanded for further proceedings
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural directive by which an appellate court or federal district court returns a case to a lower court or state court for further proceedings consistent with the higher court's ruling. The directive may address jurisdictional defects, bias concerns, or the need for additional fact-finding. It restores authority to the receiving court while limiting the scope of issues that may be reconsidered.
Orla O'Malley sued Omega Energy in state court on state-law claims. Omega removed the action, asserting federal question jurisdiction. Orla moved to remand more than thirty days later, citing a procedural defect in the notice of removal. The district court denied the motion because the statutory deadline had passed and subject-matter jurisdiction existed.
Oscar Ortiz prevailed before a judge who held a substantial personal financial stake in similar pending litigation. The court of appeals found the appearance of bias intolerable under due process. It vacated the judgment and directed further proceedings before a different judge.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Otto Osman obtained a favorable judgment from a judge who had served as trustee of a university negotiating with the opposing party. The conflict surfaced after judgment. The appellate court vacated the decision and remanded for proceedings before a judge free of the statutory disqualification.
Onyx O'Reilly challenged a coastal commission's permit condition requiring a public access easement. The trial court invalidated the condition and sent the matter back for an evidentiary hearing on whether the development created a direct impact on public access.
Oriana Oberman sued state officials alleging that legislative districts violated equal protection. The Supreme Court found the claim justiciable and returned the case to the district court for development of the factual record on invidious discrimination.
Olga O'Neill sued after coastal regulations barred all development on her beachfront lots. The Supreme Court held that a total deprivation of economic use requires compensation unless background nuisance principles prohibit the use. It remanded for the state court to determine whether any such principles applied.
A motion to remand based on any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be filed within thirty days after the notice of removal. After that deadline the defect is waived and the federal court may retain the case.
Supporting sources
The judgment is vacated and the case is returned to a neutral tribunal for further proceedings. The risk of actual or apparent bias requires a fresh adjudication before a different decision-maker.
Supporting sources
Yes. The statute imposes an objective standard. When the violation is neither harmless nor trivial, the judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded for proceedings before a judge free of the disqualification.
Supporting sources
The lower court must first determine whether background principles of state property or nuisance law already prohibited the owner's intended use. Only after that inquiry can the court decide whether a compensable taking occurred.
Supporting sources
…The ordinance is an arbitrary and irrational regulation. The judgment of the Ohio Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Concurring opinions Concurring — Mr. Justice Brennan I join the plurality opinion of Mr. Justice Powell. I write separately to emphasize that…