Glossary entry (derived from question below)
Sep 18, 2004 15:02
20 yrs ago
28 viewers *
Spanish term
"Fast, high quality, reasonable prices"
Native in: Spanish
Works in: Spanish to English, English to Spanish
defecto
Spanish to English
Law/Patents
Law (general)
sentencia de divorcio
Republica Dominicana. Oficialia del estado civil del municipio de San Cristobal. Pronunciamiento de divorcio. Yo, XX oficial del estado civil de San Cristobal con el domicilio en esta ciudad, y mi oficina abierta en la casa N°XX certifico que...
Cámara de lo Civil y Comercial del Juzgado de Primera Instancia del Distrito Judicial de San Cristobal.
Sentencia Civil N° XX
En nombre de la republica: en la ciudad de San Cristobal, provincia y municipio del mismo nombre,...
la Cámara de lo Civil y Comercial del Juzgado de Primera Instancia del Distrito Judicial de San Cristobal, regularmente constituida por el Magistrado Juez XX asistido por el infrascrito secretario, ha dictado en sus atribuciones civiles la sentencia siguiente: con motivo de la demanda civil en acción de divorcio por la causa determinada de incompatibilidad de caracteres, incoada por XX, quien tiene como abogado constituido y apoderado especial al doctor XX, abogado de los tribunales de la república dominicana, portador de la célula personal de indentidad XX, con oficina abierta en la avenida XX...
Falla:
primero: acoge las condiciones vertidas en audiencia por la parte demandante por ser justas y reposar en pruebas legales y en consecuencia, admite el divorcio entre los señores esposos XX y XX por la causa determinada de INCOMPATIBILIDAD DE CARACTERES.
Segundo: Ratifica el DEFECTO pronunciado en adiencia contra el señor XX por no haber comparecido a la audiencia para la cual fue legalmente citado y emplazado.
Cámara de lo Civil y Comercial del Juzgado de Primera Instancia del Distrito Judicial de San Cristobal.
Sentencia Civil N° XX
En nombre de la republica: en la ciudad de San Cristobal, provincia y municipio del mismo nombre,...
la Cámara de lo Civil y Comercial del Juzgado de Primera Instancia del Distrito Judicial de San Cristobal, regularmente constituida por el Magistrado Juez XX asistido por el infrascrito secretario, ha dictado en sus atribuciones civiles la sentencia siguiente: con motivo de la demanda civil en acción de divorcio por la causa determinada de incompatibilidad de caracteres, incoada por XX, quien tiene como abogado constituido y apoderado especial al doctor XX, abogado de los tribunales de la república dominicana, portador de la célula personal de indentidad XX, con oficina abierta en la avenida XX...
Falla:
primero: acoge las condiciones vertidas en audiencia por la parte demandante por ser justas y reposar en pruebas legales y en consecuencia, admite el divorcio entre los señores esposos XX y XX por la causa determinada de INCOMPATIBILIDAD DE CARACTERES.
Segundo: Ratifica el DEFECTO pronunciado en adiencia contra el señor XX por no haber comparecido a la audiencia para la cual fue legalmente citado y emplazado.
Proposed translations
(English)
| 5 | default |
Henry Hinds
|
| 5 | defect / fault / ommission |
Manuel Cedeño Berrueta
|
| 4 | judgment by default |
Michel A.
|
Proposed translations
4 hrs
Henry Hinds
United States
United States
Native in Spanish
&
English
Specializes in field
United States
43 years of Border Experience and fast.
Native in: English 
, Spanish
Works in: English to Spanish, Spanish to English
Related KudoZ points
:
5063
Selected
default
Just "default", nothing else. Then the judgment being entered will be a "default judgment".
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks a lot for your help!!!
Kindest Regards
Ceci."
11 mins
Michel A.
Works in field
judgment by default
-
1 hr
Manuel Cedeño Berrueta
Native in Spanish
Specializes in field
Patent,Contract,Extradition,Family Law
Native in: Spanish
Works in: English to Spanish, Spanish
Related KudoZ points
:
402
defect / fault / ommission
defect / fault / ommission
It means that the party has failed to comply with some procedural formality required by law.
In this case, "Mr. XX" did not appear before Court when he was obliged to do so.
Best regards,
Manuel
---------
Inadmissibility of the action because of procedural defect in the initial brief
1. The attorney for the Secretary General claims that the Complainant has violated Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Tribunal because she should have filed the present Complaint, No. 157, concomitantly with Complaint No. 156.
3. It must also be recalled that the Statute and Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal contain no regulations on possible petitions for joinder, and therefore the judge must fill this gap by applying general principles of procedure. Hence, Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure must be interpreted restrictively rather than broadly; otherwise there would be no legal possibility of denying or granting requests for a joinder of actions. It should be borne in mind that this procedural formality has the practical purpose of achieving judicial economy but especially of avoiding contradictory judgments, especially since this Tribunal is a sole, exclusive organ -- all the more reason for it to be able to order or deny a plea for joinder.
4. In view of the foregoing, this Tribunal feels that it must deny the request by the attorney for the Secretary General to find the present complaint inadmissible, since, in its opinion, there is no serious procedural defect in the complaint brief.
http://www.oas.org/tribadm/Decisiones_Decisions/Judgments/ju...
.-----------
The Legal Council of State declared the application inadmissible because of the formal defect on the record of filing, holding that when an application was lodged with a public authority other than the Legal Council of State, compliance with that procedural requirement was a condition precedent to the validity of the application.
The verdict of the trial court delivered in February 1993 was quashed by the court of appeal owing to a formal defect and the case was remitted for a retrial before Milan Criminal Court. In May 1995 the applicant challenged Mrs M., the President and Mrs B., a judge, of Milan Criminal Court on the ground that they had already delivered a verdict on his guilt in the judgment of 6 July 1993 in the case against Mr A. and had expressed an unwarranted opinion on the offences forming the subject-matter of the accusation. - http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/InformationNotes/INFONOTE No 24....
It means that the party has failed to comply with some procedural formality required by law.
In this case, "Mr. XX" did not appear before Court when he was obliged to do so.
Best regards,
Manuel
---------
Inadmissibility of the action because of procedural defect in the initial brief
1. The attorney for the Secretary General claims that the Complainant has violated Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Tribunal because she should have filed the present Complaint, No. 157, concomitantly with Complaint No. 156.
3. It must also be recalled that the Statute and Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal contain no regulations on possible petitions for joinder, and therefore the judge must fill this gap by applying general principles of procedure. Hence, Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure must be interpreted restrictively rather than broadly; otherwise there would be no legal possibility of denying or granting requests for a joinder of actions. It should be borne in mind that this procedural formality has the practical purpose of achieving judicial economy but especially of avoiding contradictory judgments, especially since this Tribunal is a sole, exclusive organ -- all the more reason for it to be able to order or deny a plea for joinder.
4. In view of the foregoing, this Tribunal feels that it must deny the request by the attorney for the Secretary General to find the present complaint inadmissible, since, in its opinion, there is no serious procedural defect in the complaint brief.
http://www.oas.org/tribadm/Decisiones_Decisions/Judgments/ju...
.-----------
The Legal Council of State declared the application inadmissible because of the formal defect on the record of filing, holding that when an application was lodged with a public authority other than the Legal Council of State, compliance with that procedural requirement was a condition precedent to the validity of the application.
The verdict of the trial court delivered in February 1993 was quashed by the court of appeal owing to a formal defect and the case was remitted for a retrial before Milan Criminal Court. In May 1995 the applicant challenged Mrs M., the President and Mrs B., a judge, of Milan Criminal Court on the ground that they had already delivered a verdict on his guilt in the judgment of 6 July 1993 in the case against Mr A. and had expressed an unwarranted opinion on the offences forming the subject-matter of the accusation. - http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/InformationNotes/INFONOTE No 24....
Something went wrong...