Talk:Remand (court procedure)

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Why was "may not have to work or attend (prison) education" removed from the list of benefits of a remand prisoner? Whilst I understand this may not be true worldwide, its certainly true in some prisons in Australia. -- Longhair | Talk 22:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding this back in. The ip that removed it has 2 edits and hasn't replied here after some time. -- Longhair | Talk 07:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reads far too much like a dictionary

Just a comment, but the article really does read a lot like a definition from a legal textbook or a dictionary. I know what remand means, but for a lay reader it would probably be quite confusing and would require a fair degree of link checking to work out what the term actually refers to. Perhaps clarity over an obsession with definitional accuracy is the way to go for an article like this.

Half an article?

Is there any reason why a principal, perhaps primary, definition of remand ("To send back. The sending by the appellate court of the cause [sic] back to the same court out of which it came, for purpose of having some further action taken on it there." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, ©1979) doesn't appear in this article? Unless there is objection or some other issue of which I'm unaware, I'll edit the article to include it in a day or two. Duckecho 05:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Longhair | Talk 02:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First look at second meaning

I wikified what words were available. I put the court-to-court definition first because it's shorter. I put two sources, one for etymology and one for legal usage. Feel free to massage as necessary. Duckecho 04:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sub divided

I have sub-divided the former page 'remand' to:

Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-12-10 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German link

I don't know anything about the law, but reading this article and the one for the German link, I get the impression that these are really two different things and that the wik linking of the two is incorrect. For example, it seems the Remand is only a sort of correction or possib le correction, whereas it seems U-haft is holding during initial investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.109.131 (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide View

Just weighing in on the box that appears on this article. It appears that the page has been updated so that it specifically refers to the U.S. court procedure, so I'm curious as to why it still needs to reflect a worldwide view. As such, an we remove the box? Fred.Pendleton (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The box is there because it still doesn't reflect on the worldwide view? It only describes the use of remand in the use of the United State court system. There are other countries that have court system that make use of the a court procedure called "remand" but none of them are mention in the article hence it is not a world wide view. 27.33.131.178 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]