28 U.S.C. § 2111
Harmless error
On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,002
cases (151 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: United States v. Lane
United States v. Lane (1986)
“McElroy, however, was decided long before the adoption of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8 and 52, and prior to the enactment of the harmless-error statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2111 , which provides that on appeal we are to ignore "errors or defects which do not affect the…”
Molina v. Astrue (2012)
“1696 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2111 , which codifies the federal harmless error rule for civil cases).”
United States v. Hasting (1983)
“After examining the harmless-error rules of the 50 States along with the federal analog, 28 U. S. C. § 2111 , the Chapman Court stated: "All of these rules, state or federal, serve a very useful purpose insofar as they block setting aside convictions for small errors or defects…”
Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993)
“After examining existing harmless-error rules, including the federal rule ( 28 U. S. C. § 2111 ), we held that "before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Dorsey v. State (1976)
“The Chapman Court observed that none of the "harmless error" statutes or rules in effect in the states, similar to that set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2111 , facially "distinguishes between federal constitutional errors and errors of state law or federal statutes and rules," but all…”
O'NEAL v. McAninch (1995)
“§391 , now codified with minor change at 28 U. S. C. § 2111 . See Kotteakos, 328 U.”
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood (1984)
“Congress has further reinforced the application of Rule 61 by enacting the harmless-error statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2111 , which applies directly to appellate courts and which incorporates the same principle as that found in Rule 61.”
United States v. Dominguez Benitez (2004)
“To affect "substantial rights," see 28 U. S. C. § 2111 , an error must have "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the .”
L IZZIE K. M AY FIELD v. R. James Nicholson (2005)
“1 (stating that “[tjhese rules govern the procedure in the United States district courts”).”
People v. Miller (2005)
“To curb the injustices which were inherently resulting from such a reversal-oriented approach, Congress in 1919 enacted a statute requiring that appellate courts reverse only for errors or defects which affected the “substantial rights” of the parties, or, in other words, that…”
Perry Austin v. Lorie Davis, Director (2017)
“It provides that “[o]n the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
Lydia Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc. (2012)
“When, on appeal, an appellant seeks a new trial based on an adverse evidentiary ruling, the court of appeals decides whether a new trial should be ordered according to the dictates of 28 U.S.C. § 2111 , Harmless error: “On the hearing of any appeal .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.