Basically - the Supremes sent my case back to the court order that prevailed prior to the last court appearance where the new judge "made a decision" that obliterated prior court order.
My thought is the "decision that was reversed and remanded" - is null and void as if he never happened.
Or does it depend on the new district court judge's "opinion" of what "reversed" and "remanded" means?
Generally, "reversed" means that the order that was the basis of the appeal has been reversed. The "remand" is usually with directions on what the trial court should do when the case goes back to that court. Most remands require the trial court to do the hearing or motion over, in accordance with the directions from the Supreme Court.
This answer does not create an attorney-client relationship. It is advisable to consult with an attorney with full disclosure of relevant facts for a comprehensive leagl opinion.
1 found this helpful
2 lawyers agree