reversible error


Also found in: Wikipedia.

reversible error

n. a legal mistake at the trial court level which is so significant (resulted in an improper judgment) that the judgment must be reversed by the appellate court. A reversible error is distinguished from an error which is minor or did not contribute to the judgment at the trial. (See: reversal)

References in periodicals archive ?
The lawyers argued that the hearing officer also committed a reversible error when he denied a submission made by Mr.
The SC said that Mejorada failed "to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error." "As correctly ruled by the CA, the elements of Libel were sufficiently established by the prosecution," it added.
The SC decision dismissed the petition filed by the five BAC members "for failure of the petitioners to show that the Sandiganbayan committed any reversible error in its Feb.
PSALM, it said, 'failed to show that the CA committed a reversible error in the challenged decision and resolutions as to warrant the exercise of the court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.'
PSALM, it said, 'failed to show that the CA committed reversible error in the challenged decision and resolutions as to warrant the exercise of the court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.'
On direct appeal, appellant raised, through his attorney, three claims of alleged reversible error. He first argued that the District Court abused its discretion by admitting, under Minn.
An Assistant Monroe County District Attorney from the Appeals Bureau convinced DeMarco to put no limitations on the defense cross-examination to avoid committing a reversible error, Rivera wrote.
"After reviewing the entire record, the memoranda of counsel, and the pertinent law, I conclude that the decision of the Board of Review exhibits the same defects which were found to constitute reversible error many years ago in Foster-Glocester [Regional School Committee v.
Newton wrote that the Western District previously found in a civil case that the refusal to strike a disqualified juror who did not sit on the jury panel was reversible error, and it must rule similarly in a criminal matter "where a fundamental liberty interest is at stake and the disqualified juror did sit in judgment of the defendant."
We conclude, as the Virginia Court of Appeals has concluded in addressing the same issue, that the Seibert "deliberateness finding is appropriately reviewed as a factual finding." Accordingly, in reviewing this finding, we will apply "the standard applicable to appellate review of determinations of fact by a trial court," and "that is, whether the finding is 'plainly wrong or without evidence to support [it].'" Furthermore, the burden rests with Secret to establish that the denial of his suppression motion was reversible error.
Circuit Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion Wednesday, affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding no reversible error and calling Sullivan's arguments on appeal "without merit."
Even though the concept of fundamental error is essentially the same in civil and criminal cases, it seems to be much harder in civil cases to convince a court that an unobjected-to error is fundamental and reversible error. But when fundamental error is apparent on the face of the judgment itself, the courts will recognize and correct that error.

Full browser ?