Creach v. Angulo

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining error is reversible only if prejudicial to substantial rights of party
• supreme court’s statement in prior case that error was “reversible” was dictum where it would have been sufficient “[t]o have found mere ‘error’ ”
• supreme court’s statement in prior case that error was “reversible” was dictum where it would have been sufficient “[t]o have found mere ‘error’”
• no reversal of termination because juvenile court’s failure to order social study did not prejudice parent
• “To justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.”
• “To justify the reversal of a case, there must not only be error, but the error must have been prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).