On Tue, 14 May 1996, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:
Ok, thank you for clarifying that. One question regarding the "de novo," if a lower court decides to restrict its ruling to a specific aspect of the case ("indecency") can the higher court broaden the scope of its ruling, or must its ruling be with specific regards to the scope of the lower court. (I don't know if the appeal can be on the basis of the scope.)
If the legal issue was presented for decision below, and forms a part of the notice of appeal, then it is properly preented to the court of appeal, regardless of what the court below actually did. Any other rule would allow a trial court to prevent issues from being reviewed. The Supreme Court has been known, however, to decide issues that went beyond the strict confines of these limits. Even things that weren't argued by the parties.... If the appellate decision requires more facts in order to apply the legal principle decided by the higher court, it has the option of remanding the case to the trial court for more fact-finding in light of the legal rules explicated by the higher court. [...] [I am away from Miami from May 8 to May 28. I will have no Internet connection from May 22 to May 29; intermittent connections before then.] A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm there.