After an appellate court announces its opinion and judgment, it issues the \u201cmandate,\u201d returning jurisdiction to the lower court and commanding it to implement the judgment. In the time between judgment and mandate, appellate judges have power to \u201chold\u201d the mandate, or to order that the mandate not issue until further notice. This is usually done because the judge\u2014who may or may not be a member of the original panel\u2014intends to seek revision of the opinion or request that the case be reheard by the en banc court. But courts typically do not notify the parties when a judge holds the mandate. This leads to inaccuracy in legal writing, with parties unknowingly citing cases that may cease to be good authority. A survey of the relevant data shows that when a judge holds the mandate, the original panel opinion is vacated 62.1% of the time. The lack of information also takes litigants out of the equation, depriving courts of the ordinary benefits of party presentation. In addition to introducing the basic nature of an appellate court mandate, this Article advocates for the adoption of local rules that provide for notification on the public docket when a judge holds the mandate on his or her own motion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
After an appellate court announces its opinion and judgment, it issues the \u201cmandate,\u201d returning jurisdiction to the lower court and commanding it to implement the judgment. In the time between […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10127,"featured_media":0,"parent":1770,"menu_order":6,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-2150","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2150","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10127"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2150"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2150\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2153,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2150\/revisions\/2153"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1770"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}