CanonLaw.Ninja

A resource for both professional and armchair canonists.

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

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 0.0017 seconds.