Narrative Opinion Summary
On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated and remanded the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court in the case of Dickson v. Rucho, instructing it to reconsider the case in light of the precedents set in Cooper v. Harris and North Carolina v. Covington. The North Carolina court is directed to determine: (1) whether a controversy exists or if the matter is moot in whole or part, considering the implications of Cooper v. Harris and North Carolina v. Covington; (2) if there are any remaining collateral state or federal issues that need resolution; and (3) whether any other forms of relief may be appropriate.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consideration of Collateral Issuessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court must assess if there are unresolved state or federal issues that remain following the Supreme Court's guidance.
Reasoning: (2) if there are any remaining collateral state or federal issues that need resolution;
Determination of Appropriate Reliefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court should consider if other forms of relief may be warranted in light of the case's reconsideration.
Reasoning: (3) whether any other forms of relief may be appropriate.
Evaluation of Controversy and Mootnesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court is tasked with determining whether the controversy still exists or if the case is moot following recent precedents.
Reasoning: The North Carolina court is directed to determine: (1) whether a controversy exists or if the matter is moot in whole or part, considering the implications of Cooper v. Harris and North Carolina v. Covington;
Vacatur and Remand by the Supreme Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the judgment for reconsideration in light of new precedents.
Reasoning: On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated and remanded the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court in the case of Dickson v. Rucho, instructing it to reconsider the case in light of the precedents set in Cooper v. Harris and North Carolina v. Covington.