CanonLaw.Ninja

A resource for both professional and armchair canonists.

Also including the GIRM, GILH, CCC, CCEO, DC, USCCB Norms, and Vos estis.

What do you think of the new design? Provide feedback here!
The previous version still is available at old.canonlaw.ninja.

Search

  • Section Numbers
  • Text Search    

  • Documents
  •  

   

Document

Processes » The Contentious Trial » The Ordinary Contentious Trial » Challenging of the Sentence » Complaint of nullity against the sentence
Canon 1620. A sentence suffers from the defect of irremediable nullity if:

1. it was rendered by an absolutely incompetent judge;

2. it was rendered by a person who lacks the power of judging in the tribunal in which the case was decided;

3. a judge rendered a sentence coerced by force or grave fear;

4. the trial took place without the judicial petition mentioned in can. 1501 or was not instituted against some respondent;

5. it was rendered between parties, at least one of whom did not have standing in the trial;

6. someone acted in the name of another without a legitimate mandate;

7. the right of defense was denied to one or the other party;

8. it did not decide the controversy even partially.
Canon 1622. A sentence suffers from the defect of remediable nullity only if:

1. it was rendered by an illegitimate number of judges contrary to the prescript of can. 1425, §1;

2. it does not contain the motives or reasons for the decision;

3. it lacks the signatures prescribed by law;

4. it does not indicate the year, month, day, and place in which it was rendered;

5. it is based on a null judicial act whose nullity was not sanated according to the norm of can. 1619;

6. it was rendered against a party legitimately absent according to can. 1593, §2.
Processes » The Contentious Trial » The Ordinary Contentious Trial » Res Iudicata and Restitutio in Integrum » Restitutio in integrum
Canon 1645. §1. *Restitutio in integrum* is granted against a sentence which has become res iudicata provided that its injustice is clearly established.

§2. Injustice, however, is not considered to be established clearly unless:

1. the sentence is based on proofs which afterwards are discovered to be false in such a way that without those proofs the dispositive part of the sentence is not sustained;

2. documents have been revealed afterwards which undoubtedly prove new facts and demand a contrary decision;

3. the sentence was rendered due to the malice of one party resulting in harm to the other party;

4. a prescript of the law which is not merely procedural was clearly neglected;

5. the sentence is contrary to a previous decision which has become *res iudicata*.

Page generated in 0.0052 seconds.