Agravo de instrumento

• Autor(a) principal: Cassemiro, Mariana de Souza
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• 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/34973
• topic: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PUBLICO::DIREITO PROCESSUAL CIVIL; Agravo de instrumento; Limitação de cabimento; Celeridade processual; Mandado de segurança contra atos do juiz; Art. 1.015 do CPC/2015; Decisões interlocutórias agraváveis e não agraváveis; Procedimento; Sistema de preclusão; Art. 1.009, §1° do CPC/2015; Interpretação taxativa em sentido literal; Interpretação extensiva ou ampliativa; interpretação meramente exemplificativa; Taxatividade mitigada; Urgência; Interlocutory appeal; Limitation of place; Rapid procedure; Injunction against acts of the judge; Art. 1.015 CPC/2015; Interlocutory decisions aggravate and not aggravate; Procedure; Debarment system; Art. 1,009, § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure/2015; Exhaustive interpretation in literal sense; Extensive interpretation; Interpretation of the illustrative purposes only; Rateability Mitigated; Urgency

This is because the courts have been given a significant amount of the filing of such appeal, resulting in lengthy trials and, often, without reaching a resolution. In order to solve such a dilemma, the legislature determined chances place of interlocutory appeal, limiting your filing and, consequently, for the judiciary, as well as debottlenecking speed in this trial and other resources. However, several were criticisms about the legal understanding that 1,015 device the roster presented would not be able to cover all the situations in which the interlocutory appeal should be applicable in view of the urgency. Several were chains presented to conclude the best way of interpretation of the said device, standoff recently resolved in trial of repetitive feature by Minister Nancy Andrighi of the Superior Court of Justice, that explained the case of “rateability” mixed. In addition, the understanding that interlocutory not aggravate decisions in the process of knowledge, i.e. that are not located in the art. 1,015 or fancy law, the most appropriate way to challenge will be in primary reasons or “downside reasons” of appeal, based on art. 1,009, § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure/2015, not subject to the effects of estoppel