Mollaghan v. Varnell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that whether a criminal judgment is final for the purpose of Rule 33 is a question of law reviewed de novo
• holding mandate impliedly decides that resentencing de novo usually required when it reverses a conviction and remands for resentencing
• holding mandate impliedly decides that resentencing de novo usually required when it reverses a conviction and remands for resentencing
• observing that if “an appellate court has once decided an issue, the trial court, at a later stage in the litigation, is under a duty to follow the appellate court’s ruling on that issue” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• discussing ʺmajor groundsʺ for ʺdepart[ing] from the sound policy of adhering to [a] prior rulingʺ
• reviewing de novo whether a mandate foreclosed the district court from exercising discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).