Also known as: harmlessly · harmless error
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
3 senses
A confinement or condition that does not cause actual harm or give rise to liability even if it involves an unreasonable risk. The absence of harm prevents recovery for false imprisonment. A situation created by conduct remains harmless unless acted upon by other forces.
A confinement or condition that does not cause actual harm or give rise to liability even if it involves an unreasonable risk. The absence of harm prevents recovery for false imprisonment. A situation created by conduct remains harmless unless acted upon by other forces.
Hamid Hassan briefly locked Helena Hoffman inside a conference room while moving furniture. Helena remained unaware of the lock and suffered no distress or injury. Because the confinement was merely transitory and harmless, Hamid faces no false-imprisonment liability.
An error that does not affect substantial rights and therefore does not require reversal or vacatur of a judgment. The standard applies to both constitutional and nonconstitutional errors on direct review. A violation is harmless when the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.
Hakim Hall, a former manager of Helix Biotech, faced a contract claim arising from his management duties. The claim did not stem from any breach of fiduciary duty. Helix Biotech must indemnify and hold Hakim harmless for the resulting liability.
An error in the execution of a will that may be excused when clear and convincing evidence shows the decedent adopted the document as a will. The rule serves the intent-serving purpose of statutory formalities rather than treating them as ends in themselves.
Hiroshi Hasegawa's will contained handwritten changes to several gift amounts after execution. The proponent presented clear and convincing evidence that Hiroshi intended the altered document as his will. The harmless error in execution is therefore excused and the will is probated as revised.
An error that does not affect substantial rights and therefore does not require reversal or vacatur of a judgment. The standard applies to both constitutional and nonconstitutional errors on direct review. A violation is harmless when the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.
An error in the execution of a will that may be excused when clear and convincing evidence shows the decedent adopted the document as a will. The rule serves the intent-serving purpose of statutory formalities rather than treating them as ends in themselves.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Halcyon Motors left a vehicle in neutral on a slight incline. A third party later released the brake, causing the vehicle to roll and injure a pedestrian. The initial placement created a situation harmless unless acted upon by other forces, so Halcyon is not a substantial factor in the harm.
A confinement is harmless when it is merely transitory or the plaintiff is unaware of it and suffers no harm. Liability does not attach even if the act created an unreasonable risk, provided there was no intent to confine.
Harriet Hamilton, a partner in Highland Farms, paid a partnership debt while acting within her authority. The payment did not arise from any breach of duty. The partnership must indemnify and hold Harriet harmless for that obligation.
Henry Hoffman served as trustee of a university while presiding over litigation involving that university. He lacked actual knowledge of the conflict at the time. The violation is neither harmless nor trivial, so the judgment may warrant vacatur on remand.
An error is harmless when it does not affect substantial rights. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict in constitutional cases. Nonconstitutional errors are disregarded if they do not affect substantial rights under Rule 52(a).
An LLC must indemnify a manager for claims arising from the manager's capacity unless the claim results from a breach of duty under sections 405, 407, or 409. The obligation applies to both present and former managers.
No. A harmless error may be excused if the proponent establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent adopted the document as a will. The rule focuses on whether the decedent intended the document to be a will rather than on strict compliance with formalities.
…to invoke Anderson . I agree with the Government that the admission of the evidence now protested by petitioner was at most harmless error, and two final contentions—one involving weight of the evidence and another improper prosecutor comment—seem to me without merit. I would therefore affirm Westover's conviction. In…