Do cabimento do agravo de instrumento nos juizados especiais cíveis estaduais

• Autor(a) principal: Muniz, Camila Cruz
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• 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/33546
• topic: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PUBLICO::DIREITO PROCESSUAL CIVIL

At present, there are three federal laws that address the special courts, and in this essay we analyze the model imposed by Law 9.099/1995, special civil courts on state. The courts aim to expedite the process, which is why the courts have different rules and regulations under the ordinary procedure, rules which must be followed, the author can not claim ignorance of differential standards. As will be studied, the Law of the special civil courts predicted only three resources for challenging decisions, which are: the unnamed Appeal, the requests for clarification and the extraordinary appeal that does not anticipate the offense as a proper appeal. In this way, there are those who understand that interlocutory decisions does not preclude and may be discussed in the appeal brought nameless. Failure appropriateness of interlocutory appeal is justified since there are different decisions of the judges, which could result in the stoppage of the action while not dismissed the appeal, which is what often happens in ordinary and summary rites. However, in view of the principle of double jurisdiction laid down in the Constitution, I believe it is reasonable to file an interlocutory appeal to avoid losses. Besides, nothing would matter, creating a rite more efficient and faster, if the decisions were not fair, because there is a high possibility of judges making mistakes, so the interlocutory appeal is the fairest way to reform the inaccuracies of interlocutory decisions. 3 Moreover, with the prediction of an interlocutory appeal against interlocutory decisions, not the injunction should be used as a substitute for appeal , such constitutional remedy gets great importance and should not be used as a substitute for appeal provided by law