|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 0.0028 seconds.
Website code © 2020 (MIT License). Version 2.7.2 FAQ