0

I am having a hard time interpreting a specific phrase. The phrase is "A judgement has been entered."

If a judgement was previously entered, and it was then removed. Would the "has been entered," be the correct tense, or should it be "had been entered." In other words, does "has been entered" imply that the judgement is still entered today, or could it simply just imply that it was entered at one point in the past, not necessarily today?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

The phrase "a judgement has been entered" comes from the fact that the judgement document is entered into the legal records, such as a docket sheet or record of proceedings. If a judgement is later superseded by a second judgment, the first judgement is not "removed" from any sense; its record remains, absent extraordinary circumstances. So such a judgement is still "entered," but it is no longer in effect.

Improve this answer
5
  • Yes, however, in this case, the first judgement was withdrawn. There was no other judgement.
    – anonuser01
    Commented Apr 18, 2019 at 15:02
  • Do you know why it was withdrawn?
    – Paul
    Commented Apr 18, 2019 at 15:06
  • I'm not too sure. It's not for me. But it looks like it was some temporary judgement that was entered with the condition that if some requirements are fulfilled, it would be later withdrawn.
    – anonuser01
    Commented Apr 18, 2019 at 15:21
  • Okay. Withdrawn is probably a better word than removed. "Had been entered" would be the better phrase, since it denotes a past act that is before another past act.
    – Paul
    Commented Apr 18, 2019 at 15:32
  • Right I think so too. So in this case, would "has been entered" technically be erroneous? Idk if interpretations in the legal field would make this kind of distinction.
    – anonuser01
    Commented Apr 18, 2019 at 15:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .