28 U.S.C. § 2106
Determination
The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,713
cases (225 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. (2006)
“" 28 U.S.C. § 2106 . Nothing in Rule 50(b) limits this statutory grant of power to appellate courts; while a party's failure to make a Rule 50(b) motion precludes the district court from directing a verdict in that party's favor, the Rule does not purport to strip the courts of…”
Burks v. United States (1978)
“” *5 The Court of Appeals assumed it had the power to order this “balancing” remedy by virtue of the fact that Burks had explicitly requested a new trial.”
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. (1983)
“Title 28 U. S. C. § 2106 gives a court of appeals some latitude in entering an order to achieve justice in the circumstances.”
United States v. Derrek Arrington (2014)
“We further determine that 28 U.S.C. § 2106 does not authorize us to grant Arrington the relief he seeks.”
Greenlaw v. United States (2008)
“B Amicus supporting the Eighth Circuit's judgment links the argument based on Rule 52(b) to a similar argument based on 28 U.S.C. § 2106 . See Brief for Amicus Curiae by Invitation of the Court 40-43 (hereinafter Jorgensen Brief).”
United States v. David Heredia-Holguin (2016)
“2015) (modifying a condition of supervised release without the need for resentencing (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2106 )). A hearing is also not required for a modification of supervised release where “the relief sought is favorable to the [defendant]” and “an attorney for the government…”
William Jordan v. United States Department of Justice (1978)
“, confidential information compromising the nation’s foreign relations or national security, and it appeared highly likely was intended to be protected by one of the nine enumerated exemptions, then under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 , the appellate court would have discretion to “remand…”
Wrenn v. District of Columbia (2017)
“62, 71 (1968) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2106 ), and should do so “to obviate further and entirely unnecessary proceedings below,” id.”
United States v. Rainford (2024)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 2106 . Judge Jacobs concurs in a separate opinion.”
Wood v. Georgia (1981)
“However, the Court fails to cite any passage from the record in which the alleged conflict of interest was presented to the state courts as a problem of constitutional dimension.”
Susan D. Goland and Patricia B. Skidmore v. Central Intelligence Agency (1978)
“Some support may be found for the proposition in the broad language of 28 U.S.C. § 2106 , which provides: The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree or order of a court lawfully brought…”
Maydak v. United States Department of Justice (2000)
“In a final effort to obtain a remand, the DOJ argues that public policy concerns about disclosing information that might otherwise be exempt require this court to exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 to remand the case for further consideration of the applicability of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.