What Happens After a Case is Remanded

My question involves court procedures for the state of: Indiana
After the lower court makes a new decision based on the Supreme Court's remand. Does it go back to the Supreme court or is the lower courts new decision final???
Thank you for your assistance

Appellate courts rarely retain jurisdiction following remand. If they do not, then it's up to the parties to decide if they again want to appeal following the trial court's new decision.

Thank you for the information.
To be clear-what are you referring to when you stated "If they do not" Who is "they" and if they do not "what"?
The case has been remanded to the trial court with a set of instructions from the Supreme Court. Can either party appeal the ruling made by the trial court after the instructions have been followed and a decision is made?
Forgive my ignorance, I simply want to be certain that once the trial court completes the instructions and makes a ruling that that ruling cannot be appealed.

Quote:

---

Quoting Ricky7

---

...I simply want to be certain that once the trial court completes the instructions and makes a ruling that that ruling cannot be appealed.

---

You can't be certain. An order modified by a trial court after remand becomes a new final order that may be appealed.

Quote:

---

Quoting Ricky7

---

My question involves court procedures for the state of: Indiana
After the lower court makes a new decision based on the Supreme Court's remand. Does it go back to the Supreme court or is the lower courts new decision final???
Thank you for your assistance

---

When a remand is ordered the trial court is supposed to rehear the case based on the rules outlined by the Supreme Court. If the trial court does their job properly then the new ruling would stand. If they don't do their job properly then it would be up to the party who prevailed at the Supreme Court level to take the matter back to appeals.

I will give you an example of a real case. The Supreme Court ordered a custody case to be reheard on remand. Instead of rehearing the case the judge simply issued a new ruling with a bunch of made up reasons for the ruling, with the same result as the original case. So, the case went back into appeals and eventually got back to the Supreme Court and this time, instead of remanding the Supreme Court simply overturned...in other words, cancelled out the judge's ruling entirely.

The process of remand is honestly quite complicated and honestly depends a bit on the trial court judge's ego and how seriously the judge takes the remand...and to a great extent how far the judge believes that the parties will take the case. Getting remanded is a slap to a trial court judge...getting overturned entirely is a much bigger slap.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting tex11

---

But any new appeal would generally be restricted to litigating issues within the bounds of the remand. And only to the exten the lower court did not substantially comply with the letter and intent of the remand

---

I completely agree...hence the example I gave.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

...I will give you an example of a real case. The Supreme Court ordered a custody case to be reheard on remand. Instead of rehearing the case the judge simply issued a new ruling with a bunch of made up reasons for the ruling, with the same result as the original case. So, the case went back into appeals and eventually got back to the Supreme Court and this time, instead of remanding the Supreme Court simply overturned...in other words, cancelled out the judge's ruling entirely...

---

I agree in principle, but am curious as to the real case you refer to. Can you cite it?

Quote:

---

Quoting tex11

---

I agree in principle, but am curious as to the real case you refer to. Can you cite it?

---

I wish I could, but it was about 15 years ago and I honestly do not remember the case names...It just stuck.

Only custody case I ever heard having a serious issue on appeal in regards to the trial court judge, the appeals court overturned and ordered a new trial with another judge. Might be the same.

Quote:

---

Quoting tex11

---

Only custody case I ever heard having a serious issue on appeal in regards to the trial court judge, the appeals court overturned and ordered a new trial with another judge. Might be the same.

---

I don't think it was the same case. The one I am talking about was in Indiana.

Thank you all for your insightful comments and examples.
My case in particular is a derivative suit by sibling minority shareholders. The corporation board of directors at the request of the sibling shareholders assigned a special litigation committee to investigate the derivative claims. After a long investigation the SLC produced a report. As a result of the report's recommendations, the corporation filed a motion to dismiss certain derivative claims and attached a heavily redacted version of the report in support of its motion.
Seeking access to the unredacted report in order to challenge the SLC’s conclusions on one of only two grounds permitted by Indiana law, the sibling shareholders filed a motion to compel production of the full report. The trial court granted the sibling shareholders’ motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal. The corporation then made a petition to transfer the case to the Indiana Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard and the case was transferred. Now after months of review the Supreme Court issued their opinion. The court remanded the case to the trial court with a set of 4 specific instructions. (1) The corporation is to specifically identify privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product contained within the SLC report; (2) the trial court to review in camera the revised redacted SLC report and privilege designations to determine whether the designated material is in fact privileged; (3) the trial court to then order the release of the revised SLC report not protected by privilege to the sibling shareholders; and (4) the trial court to issue a protective order preventing any party from disclosing the report’s (unredacted) contents. I am in support of the sibling shareholders in this case. We do know from the original redacted report that the SLC found and recommended 4 (what I am told) criminal offenses be perused.

Thank you for any and all information you may be able to provide that will give us some idea of what we may expect with the up coming trial. Primarily if the trial courts decision will hold or can it be appealed again.