2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 75:
Line 75: + + + + + + + + + +
→Change to ACLU
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Thanks for adding the Racism section!!
: On the "vacate" thing, two points.
: First of all, note that the appeal was dropped, discontinuing appellate review. I cited to it above, you can see the website for yourself. So that renders moot the distinction between "reverse" and "vacate."
: Second, the difference between is plain from any Black's Law Dictionary. Vacate & Remand means to nullify the judgment pending renewed appellate review, and this action, importantly, '''passes no judgment "on the merits" of the lower court's opinion.''' Reversal explicitly passes judgment on the merits. The line in the ACLU article as it stands suggests that the higher court reviewed the lower court's opinion "on the merits" and disagreed, which it did not. It simply barred enforcement of the judgment until the appeal was completed, based on an incomplete list of trial docs.
: The "on the merits" distinction is critical. While you can no longer enforce a judgment that's been vacated, that does not necessarily imply that the lower court opinion is no longer ''good law.'' Depending on the procedural posture, it may still be good law. Check the case, and you'll see that the higher court intended it to still be good law.