The Meaning of “Concluded” in Litigation
The term "concluded" in legal settings usually signals the end of litigation in a trial court or an appellate court. Sometimes "concluded" might refer to the completion of a hearing or of some other stage of a cause of action. In any event, "concluded" means that the particular court process is done, and that there is no longer any active litigation taking place there.
For example, if there are factual questions in a case and the judge issues a bench ruling upon the conclusion of a trial, then the trial has concluded. The cases issued by the Florida state appellate courts sometimes refer to a habeas corpus hearing as having been "concluded" after a judge rules upon the petition; similarly, one might say that a deposition or discovery motion has also "concluded" once the parties submit their evidence and argument to the tribunal. While subsequent motions may still be filed in the case, those having completed merit consideration pursuant to the judge’s prior ruling, the hearing or process itself is nonetheless concluded .
Appellate courts in Florida may look more broadly at the meaning of a given word. For example, in its recent decision in Hercules Cement, Inc. v. Fleet Factor Corp., Fla. L. Weekly D1942 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 22, 2013), the court used the word "conclude" synonymously with "final" and observed that a final summary judgment is one which ends the litigation on the merits.
Other usages include reference to statutory authority to conclude a matter. For example, in citing Rule 3.191 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court of Florida, at 418 So.2d 1037, 1043 (Fla. 1982), referred to a bar complaint as "concluded" when the time for an appeal has run or the period to seek a rehearing has expired. In addition to use via a specific court in order of "concluded," there is also an appellate synonym-recognizing definition for "final" decisions of administrative agencies. "Conclude" would have to be inferred from the appellate application of finality, and thus would not be an explicit reference to "conclude."
Defining “Held” in the Court
In the legal world, the term "held" also carries with it a weightier connotation. "Held" is often used by courts to signal a decision or judgment that settles a matter of law and establishes a legal precedent. It removes any ambiguity and indicates what the law is on a specific issue. As useful as "concluded" is, there is perhaps no more precise way for a court to indicate the outcomes of a case than "held."
"Held," of course, indicates a decision by a reviewing court on appeal. The use of the term, along with a statement of the legal principle, denotes a decision that is binding on all lower trial courts within a particular jurisdiction. In that context, a "holding" is a court’s final disposal of the issues in the adjudication before it.
Depending on the level of the court in question, the practical effect of a holding may vary. The holding of a trial court, for example, does not bind any other court. In contrast, the holding of a court of appeal binds all lower courts of general jurisdiction in the state. Federal circuit courts similarly hold bind lower state and federal courts in the circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court’s holding is binding on all lower courts in the country.
A holding is also important in evaluating the binding nature of a court decision. When a reviewing court must decide an issue, but remands the issue to the trial court for further proceedings, the issue is not considered "held." For example, a court may remand the issue of damages to the lower court for a new trial, and a "holding" regarding that issue, such as the standard by which the jury should assess the damages, will not be binding on lower courts until after the remand.
“Concluded” Vs. “Held”: Key Differences
The contrast between "concluded" and "held" is crucial to understanding the procedural and practical consequences of appellate rulings and what happens next. Several opinions from the Illinois Appellate Court have discussed this distinction, often while attempting to explain it. Thus far, though, no opinion has taken the next step and formally held that something "is" one thing or another based on the differences of the two words and how those definitions apply in context.
We start with a common sense understanding of these terms, which essentially come down to this: Concluded means the matter is finished, done, over; held means something was decided, but there is still more to do either in that case, or in other cases, or some combination of the two.
The most frequent context for these words occurs when appeals courts remand cases back to trial courts. Oftentimes courts affirm in part, grant the appeal in part, and remand for further proceedings (as the case may be) on the remaining issues in the case. In a legal setting, the differences between these words are important enough to warrant serious consideration.
Concluded means that something has ended; it is not going to progress any more in that venue. Held means something was decided, but not necessarily for sure "one way or the other." When something has been held, the parties may fully expect that something further is to follow. A party can still be "held" even if that holding is viewed as a positive outcome for that party. Again, it may be "done" or not done if held.
In short, the difference between the two is that "concluded" means the matter is over, whereas "held" means the matter is not necessarily finished.
In Mason v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2015 IL App (1st) 131234, the appellate court heard an appeal concerning a mortgage foreclosure. The case went before a prior appellate panel, and that panel reversed and remanded the matter for proceedings consistent with the opinion (concluding the foreclosure should not have gone forward under the facts of the case). But the prior appellate panel also vacated the circuit court’s judgment denying the borrower’s motion to reconsider the foreclosure, and remanded for consideration of that motion.
On remand, the circuit court concluded that because the previous appellate panel denied the motion to reconsider, the circuit court lost jurisdiction to consider the motion. The borrower appealed again, and without rehashing the entire appellate history, the appellate court in this opinion in 2015 expressed concern with the outcome.
The appellate court recognized that the prior appellate panel concluded that the borrower’s motion to reconsider the judgment should be considered on remand. But by vacating that order and remanding for consideration, the prior appellate court was telling the circuit court to do something else entirely; the circuit court was told it could never consider the motion.
On appeal, the appellate court concluded the vacation of the order was not consistent with the prior panel’s judgment or mandate, and remanded the matter back to the circuit court to consider the motion to reconsider.
For what it is worth, this is not the first time the appellate court in this case expressed concern with what the prior appellate panel said. In a prior opinion, the appellate court expressed concern with the prior appellate panel’s use of "concluded" where it was inconsistent with the opinion as a whole (i.e. it did not make sense in full context).
This situation brings to mind the possible situation when a party may concede one issue (i.e. that the judge got it right), but then argue on appeal that the judge got it wrong on a different issue (i.e. got it wrong as to something else in the opinion). In that scenario, the appellant may want to say the prior court "held" this something else, but all of that other stuff was "concluded" because it was not challenged on appeal.
That would be an interesting argument to consider, particularly because altogether this adds some intriguing depth to courtroom vernacular and how we think about an issue on the appellate level. The distinction certainly has been recognized as important by the appellate courts.
This distinction can arise in other contexts, too. For example, in Perkins v. B. Goldman & Co., 363 Ill. App. 3d 217 (2006), where the appellate court said that the appeal court "concluded" that the trial court’s decision "held" that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for lost income. The issue apparently stemmed from the fact that the trial court stated it could not award damages for lost profit, only for lost net income.
The appeal court focused on other facts, however, which made clear that it was remanding for the consideration of lost profits in addition to lost net income damages.
The appellate court stated that "the trial court had not found that the plaintiff could not be compensated for lost profits, but instead that, having made that determination, it faced a causation issue." Id. at 221. This type of distinction among income and profits can and does matter.
Words matter. Words always have, and always will.
The Impact of a Case Being “Concluded”
"Concluded" means that the appellate court has issued its ruling, and the case is over unless one of the parties requests a rehearing or review. We know that, when an appellate court issues its decision after a hearing, the court’s decision must be obeyed. However, when the decision is a "conclusion" – meaning that the case has been concluded and all legal questions have been answered – the order is final unless the parties ask for a rehearing or review .
The rules of the appellate system indicate what happens when a case is finally decided. When a case is concluded, it is time to move on. The legal process has run its course.
When a case is concluded, any claim of error must be raised in a petition for rehearing to the appellate court, or in a petition for review with the supreme court. It no longer makes sense to try to convince anyone "below" the supreme court of any alleged errors; such thoughts must now be directed to higher courts.
The Consequences of a Matter Being “Held”
Another nuance with the verb "held" in court is when a decision is actually held. A decision being [held] by the Court impacts on precedent. The nuance meaning: "To hold: To give effect to a situation, rule or statement:; "The court held that the legislation did not apply." Let’s consider this example given by Mr Justice Fortescue in Holding Redlich Lawyers v AGL Electricity Limited (2011) 81 ATR 200 at [6]:
"This is an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT") holding that the Commonwealth Crown has a common law liability in negligence to the respondent for injury and loss suffered by it as a consequence of damage done to its electricity network caused by a bushfire on 12 February 2008 and the conduct of that bushfire which was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of an officer of SPAL. The AAT also held that the Commonwealth cannot rely on the statutory defence provided by s 45 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("the New South Wales CL Act") to a claim based on the common law. The AAT ordered the Commonwealth to pay $5,530,804 to the respondent. The Commonwealth appeals from the decision of the AAT which held that it was liable in negligence on a number of bases."
Here we can see what the Court is holding. The decision is: The Commonwealth Crown has a common law liability in negligence to the respondent for injury and loss suffered by it as a consequence of damage done to its electricity network caused by a bushfire on 12 February 2008 and "the conduct of that bushfire which was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of an officer of SPAL".
Statements about what is held by a Court tell a reader or listener to understand that the Court has made a decision. The use of this verb "held" makes it obvious rather than indulging in the unnecessary, long winded explanation that so often occurs in legal writing.
Common Misinterpretations of “Concluded” and “Held”
Common Misconceptions About "Concluded" and "Held" in Court: Some people think that the "conclusion" of a case means that the case is over and done with and can never be brought back, perhaps because the parties settled, or because the judge issued a final order. Not necessarily. A case can be "concluded" (i.e., resolved in one way or another) and not be over entirely. For example, one very common scenario that happens is that after a trial, the judge will issue a written order (sometimes called a "ruling," which is a curious combination of the term "holding," which we’ll talk about in a minute, and the term "order") which sets forth the judge’s decision. The order might state: "Parties stipulated that Mother shall have sole custody of the child. All other issues are reserved for further hearing." Now, some people will look at that and say, "Well, it says that all other issues are reserved for further hearing, so now that issue is closed." However, the parties certainly can come back again later to address that "closed" issue, whether that’s because a party moved to re-open it or otherwise. So just because an issue was reserved for hearing doesn’t necessarily mean that it really is "reserved," or for that matter, that the case is dismissed. It just means that it’s not done yet , and can be addressed in the future.
The confusion here comes down to the difference between "concluded" and "final" (or "completed"). When the case is concluded one way or the other then it’s completed, but that doesn’t mean it’s done for all time; there’s still the ability to go back again later. However, if the case is final, then that means that the court’s decision is set, and no modification of it is required. And while it sounds like a subtile distinction, it’s a vitally important one, because you’re looking to see whether the case is subject to appeal.
So what does it mean if the judge "held" something? "Holding," in legal terms, is another word for "ruling." Judges will issue "holdings" or "rulings" as part of their written orders to set forth their determinations. Even if the judge says that he "held" something, however, that doesn’t mean that holding is necessarily final, and on that ground alone, the case could still be appealed. Again, if the case is concluded and not final, then it’s subject to appeal. To make it even more clear, an appellate decision is final if it disposes of all issues in a case. If the appeals court disposes of all issues, then that means that it’s over unless some very unusual circumstance occurs.
While there are a few small exceptions to this rule, this distinction between "concluded" and "final" is something that you must be responsive to.