v. in litigation practice, so that a judge agrees that a lawyer`s objection, for example on a question, is valid. Thus, a lawyer asks a question to a witness, and the opposing lawyer disagrees, saying that the question is “irrelevant, intangible and incompetent”, “suggestive”, “argumentative” or some other objection. If the judge agrees, he or she will decide “uphold,” which means that the objection is approved and the question cannot be asked or answered. However, if the judge finds that the question is correct, he will “dismiss” the objection. V. 1) reject a lawyer`s objection to a question put to a witness or to the admission of evidence. In dismissing the objection, the trial judge admits the issue or evidence to the court. If the judge agrees with the objection, he or she “supports” the objection and does not admit the issue or evidence. (2) decide (by an appellate court) that an earlier appellate decision on a point of law was incorrect and therefore no longer constituted a valid precedent on that point of law. This means that the question is appropriate and the witness must answer it.

Continue; to be maintained. Confirm, confirm or authorize, as if an appellate court were upholding the decision of a lower court. Grant, as if a judge were upholding an objection to the statements or evidence of witnesses, agrees with the objection and gives effect to it. In the second case, when an appellate court quashes a case, the appellate court sets a precedent. Therefore, the precedent is no longer the dominant rule of law. For example, in Brown v. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection. With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned its earlier decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that separate but equal provisions based on race did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequently, Brown v. Board of Education, not Plessy v.

Ferguson, became the dominant rule of law for matters of separate but equal arrangements based on race. Does the judge agree with the lawyer who has a problem with the issue or evidence? In the first case, in accordance with Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence or various state statutes such as Section 2104 of the Oklahoma Evidence Act, the trial judge will quash or uphold the objection. If the trial judge dismisses the objection, he dismisses the objection and admits the evidence. On the other hand, maintaining the objection means that the trial judge admits the objection and excludes the evidence. “APPEAL JUDGE! Mr. Oginski is harassing my testimony. A problem with the document presented as evidence. “APPEAL JUDGE! It`s hearsay! ” shouts the defender. If he disagrees with the lawyer raising the objection, he will say, “The objection is rejected!” A problem with the lawyer`s treatment of the witness.

Any objection simply serves to alert the judge that a lawyer has a problem. Annulment is enforced in two cases: (1) when a lawyer challenges the admissibility of evidence at trial, and (2) when an appellate court renders its decision.