Piambino v. Bailey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where a prior appellate panel had considered a particular party’s intervention, and ordered that the party be allowed to intervene, it had “necessarily implied” that any procedural noncompliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 (which governs intervention
• concluding that district court violated the mandate rule, and stating that “[although our opinion did not explicitly address [certain] procedural requirements ..., its command ... necessarily implied that any procedural noncompliance ... was inconsequential”
• stating this Court has the “power to supervise the district courts” in a “wide variety of situations,” including in formulating rules of civil litigation, in order to “ensure that the judicial process remains a fair one”
• “The ‘mandate rule,’ as it is known, is nothing more than a specific application of the ‘law of the case’ doctrine.”
• “The trial court must implement both the letter and the spirit of the mandate, taking into account the appellate court’s opinion, and the circumstances it embraces.” (citations omitted)
• “Despite the wide variety of situations in which supervisory power has been invoked, the objective behind its use – fashioning procedures and remedies that ensure that the judicial process remains a fair one – has not varied.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).