Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave
From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.movies
Subject: Re: Karen Silkwood
Message-ID: <3117@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Jan-84 14:44:05 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3117
Posted: Sun Jan 15 14:44:05 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Jan-84 15:32:28 EST
References: <767@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 22

- From: riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle)
- The case reverts to the lower court because of a very basic judicial principle:
- the Supreme Court rules on points of law, not on individual cases.  When they
- overturn a ruling, the case always goes back for a retrial.

Sorry, I don't think that's true. The Supreme Court rules on points of law,
indeed. As I outlined in a previous message in net.movies, the point of law
which was appealed had nothing to do with damages, so the damages issue must
be dealt with at a lower level. But cases decided by the Supreme Court
certainly do stand. As long as no legal issues remain which are not appealed
and dealt with by the Supreme Court, nothing needs to go back to a lower
level.

(And I promised myself I wouldn't start pontificating about U.S. law,
about which I know so little...)


Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
-- 
 {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave