Yeah, but here is the language...doesn't seem to make sense to be a prior ruling.... 2005 case.... Here is the pertinent language again, a summary of a filing......
Judgment of the district court is Vacated and Remanded with instructions; Application for COA Granted In Part & Denied As Moot In Part; Motion for Injunction Denied Without Prejudice; Mandate issued immediately. (EEC/FMH/CRW)
I don't know how many times I have to ask for the link or info. I have been at the 11th's website and can't seem to find the log.
That sounds like the tube will not be reinserted. Or did you say this could be a Felos motion? I am never too optimistic about poor Terri.
I think she gets fed! They way I read it, "vacated" means that Whittemore's ruling is nullified and "remanded with instructions" means it goes back to Whittemore's court with orders that he make a particular ruling, probably to insert the feeding tube.
Judgment of the district court is Vacated and Remanded with instructions; Application for COA Granted In Part & Denied As Moot In Part; Motion for Injunction Denied Without Prejudice; Mandate issued immediately. (EEC/FMH/CRW)
The denied as moot in part could mean that because the Moody motion was to keep the tube in and it was already removed, that makes that part of the motion moot...just an educated guess
COA ='s certificate of appealaboity.... mandate ='s court certified order
So you're logged into that site? Looks like you have to pay to login .. is that right? Is the information you're seeing making sense to you? (I'm assuming your a lawyer?)
1. Charles R. Wilson
|
I don't see where to find those docs -- can you give me a hint? It's not in Opinions today -- thanks.