A taxatividade do agravo de instrumento

• Autor(a) principal: Chaves, Vanessa Provasi
• Data de Publicação: 2016
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/35871
• topic: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PUBLICO::DIREITO PROCESSUAL CIVIL; Agravo de Instrumento; Taxatividade; Interpretação; Restrição; Mandado de segurança; Jurisprudência; Interlocutory appeal; Exhaustive; Interpretation; Restriction; Mandamus; Jurisprudence

The Bill of Review Appeal is provided for in art. 1,015 of the current CPC and is applicable only in the cases provided by law. As a consequence, becomes impossible to immediately appeal from the decisions that are not in that list. These decisions can be challenged only in appeal, under penalty of preclusion. It happens that this situation allows in some cases damages to the parties that can not wait for final judgment to take the situation to the Court. Part of the current doctrine defends the use of ampliative interpretation of the hypothesis that the interlocutory appeal can be used, other part of current doctrine defends the writs of mandamus. However, the jurisprudence of the Paulista Court has adopted a restrictive interpretation to accept only interlocutory appeal in cases provided by law, not accepting the mandamus for this case. Therefore, the injured party has to wait the appellate stage to challenge this decision or try to use the request for reconsideration to the Judge or may risk the filing of an interlocutory appeal or mandamus