Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2018-10-22T12:31:48Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Roberto Rosio Figueredo.pdf: 874407 bytes, checksum: 74c72d7897266e683cb9bbe66467c77b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-10-22T12:31:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Roberto Rosio Figueredo.pdf: 874407 bytes, checksum: 74c72d7897266e683cb9bbe66467c77b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-09-04 / The interlocutory appeal, specifically as an appeal against interlocutory decisions rendered in the Courts, in relation to appeals to the Superior Courts, is a remedy widely used in forensic practice in Brazil, being truly rooted in our legal culture. However, over time, the interlocutory appeal has been subject of several and constant changes, because it is invariably related as one of the obstacles to a speedy judicial provision. Perhaps, therefore, legal practitioners often do not navigate quiet waters in dealing with the interlocutory appeal and its enforceability in court. The present work intends to help, both law practitioners and undergraduate law students, to better understand this recursal modality. In order to do so, care was taken to work on the topic in all its useful angles and questions applicable in our legal system. We have examined, through bibliographical and jurisprudential research, the historical evolution of exceptional resources and interlocutory appeals; the requirements for the admissibility of appeals in general as well as the specific aspects of the Extraordinary and Special appeals were closely monitored; and then went on to analyze each of the modes of interlocutory appeals in the superior courts, their procedures, judgments and effects, always emphasizing the most controversial issues, which are presented in the various interpretations formed in doctrine and jurisprudence, seeking to resolve doubts as to the practical and theoretical aspects of this remedy, specifically with regard to judgments in the Superior Courts. The purpose of this dissertation is to assist lawyers, judges, prosecutors and academics, who deal with legal matters, especially civil procedural law; so that the importance of our study of the constant changes in this area is justified in order to prevent them from becoming obstacles to a speedy judicial procedure. In order to concretize such scope, we opted for bibliographical and jurisprudential research, favoring a systemic approach that merges the historical study with the monographic one. Thus, the ultimate goal to be achieved will be to analyze the legal-procedural applicability of resources / O agravo, especificamente como recurso contra decisões interlocutórias proferidas nos Tribunais, é remédio amplamente utilizado na prática forense no Brasil, contudo, ao longo do tempo, tem sido alvo de diversas e constantes modificações posto que costuma estar relacionado a entraves e à celeridade da prestação jurisdicional e talvez, por isso, os operadores do direito, não se sintam à vontade ao lidarem com o agravo e sua aplicabilidade nos Tribunais. Este trabalho se propõe a auxiliar os operadores e acadêmicos do direito a melhor compreender esta modalidade recursal. Tomou-se o cuidado de trabalhar o tema sob todos os seus ângulos úteis na perspectiva do sistema jurídico-processual pátrio. Examinaram--se a evolução histórica dos recursos excepcionais e dos agravos; verificaram-se detidamente os requisitos de admissibilidade dos recursos em geral, bem como os aspectos específicos dos Recursos Extraordinário e Especial; posteriormente, passou-se à análise das modalidades de agravo nos tribunais superiores, seus procedimentos, julgamentos e efeitos, sempre enfatizando as questões mais controvertidas, procurando dirimir as dúvidas quanto ao tema, especificamente no tocante aos Tribunais Superiores. Assim, o objetivo desta dissertação é auxiliar os operadores do direito principalmente do processual; o que justifica pelas constantes alterações nesta seara de modo a evitar que se constituam em entraves a uma prestação jurisdicional célere. No intuito de concretizar tal escopo, optou-se pela pesquisa bibliográfica e jurisprudencial, privilegiando uma abordagem sistêmica que mescla o estudo histórico com o monográfico

Not available / text

No description available.

Why do interest groups participate in state courts of last resort by filing amicus curiae briefs? Are they influential when they do? This dissertation examines these questions using an original survey of organized interests that routinely participate in state supreme courts, as well as data on all amicus curiae briefs and majority opinions in over 14,000 cases decided in all fifty-two state supreme courts for a four year period. I argue that interest groups turn to state judiciaries to achieve the dual goals of influencing policy and organizational maintenance, as amicus briefs can help organized interests achieve both outcomes. Furthermore, I contend that amicus briefs are influential in shaping judicial policy-making through the provision of legally persuasive arguments. The results suggest that interest groups do file amicus briefs to both lobby for their preferred policies and to support their organization's long-term viability. Additionally, the results indicate that organized interests also participate in counteractive lobbying in state courts of last resort by filing amicus briefs to ensure their side is represented and to dull the effect of oppositional amici. The findings also demonstrate support for the influence of amicus briefs on judicial policy-making on state high courts, as amicus briefs can influence the ideological direction of the court's majority opinions. Overall, this research extends our understanding of interest group lobbing in the judiciary and in state policy venues, and provides insight into judicial politics and policy-making on state courts of last resort.

Globally, the justice system has set up courts to respond to complaints of a criminal and civil nature. Courts also respond to complaints which require swift relief by way of shortened procedures, in the form of motion proceedings. In all these complaints, courts have to respond in a manner that leaves litigants with a feeling of satisfaction that justice has been done. To the end of ensuring that there is legal certainty, justice systems in all jurisdictions have established a hierarchy of courts, with lower courts being bound by the decisions of higher courts in their jurisdiction. There has been no problem in the application of this principle called stare decisis, or judicial precedent, in disputes of law. However, in disputes of constitutional interpretation, courts have demonstrated a marked shift from observing the rule of judicial precedent. The disregard for this rule manifests itself particularly in the adjudication of cases surrounded by controversy. It is argued herein that constitutional interpretation is no different from legal interpretation, in that the rule of judicial precedent which characterises court decisions in legal disputes, should characterise court decisions in constitutional interpretation disputes. The Constitutional Court of South Africa itself, though it is the highest arbiter in constitutional matters, is bound by its own previous decisions, unless its previous decisions have become manifestly wrong. Three constitutional rights are analysed. The right to life in its three manifestations, namely, the right to life of the unborn child, the right to life of the convicted criminal not to be hanged, and the right of the terminally ill to continue living by receiving medical care at state expense. The other two rights are the right to privacy, and the right to culture. The right to privacy is the right that has been claimed in political controversies. In isolated instances, specifically mentioned herein, the Constitutional Assembly and the drafters of the Constitution have also contributed to the resultant inconsistency in constitutional interpretation. This is especially so with regard to the right to practise one‘s culture. / Constitutional, International & Indigenous Law / LL.D.

Globally, the justice system has set up courts to respond to complaints of a criminal and civil nature. Courts also respond to complaints which require swift relief by way of shortened procedures, in the form of motion proceedings. In all these complaints, courts have to respond in a manner that leaves litigants with a feeling of satisfaction that justice has been done. To the end of ensuring that there is legal certainty, justice systems in all jurisdictions have established a hierarchy of courts, with lower courts being bound by the decisions of higher courts in their jurisdiction. There has been no problem in the application of this principle called stare decisis, or judicial precedent, in disputes of law. However, in disputes of constitutional interpretation, courts have demonstrated a marked shift from observing the rule of judicial precedent. The disregard for this rule manifests itself particularly in the adjudication of cases surrounded by controversy. It is argued herein that constitutional interpretation is no different from legal interpretation, in that the rule of judicial precedent which characterises court decisions in legal disputes, should characterise court decisions in constitutional interpretation disputes. The Constitutional Court of South Africa itself, though it is the highest arbiter in constitutional matters, is bound by its own previous decisions, unless its previous decisions have become manifestly wrong. Three constitutional rights are analysed. The right to life in its three manifestations, namely, the right to life of the unborn child, the right to life of the convicted criminal not to be hanged, and the right of the terminally ill to continue living by receiving medical care at state expense. The other two rights are the right to privacy, and the right to culture. The right to privacy is the right that has been claimed in political controversies. In isolated instances, specifically mentioned herein, the Constitutional Assembly and the drafters of the Constitution have also contributed to the resultant inconsistency in constitutional interpretation. This is especially so with regard to the right to practise one‘s culture. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

While there has been a substantial body of research on interest group activity in U.S. federal courts, there has been comparatively little analysis of interest group engagement with state courts. Given that state courts adjudicate the vast majority of cases in the American legal system and very few cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, understanding why organized interests participate in these courts is of great importance. The present study analyzes interest group involvement as amicus curiae in all state courts of last resort from 1995-1999 to examine what factors motivate organized interests to turn to the courts. The results indicate that interest groups are primarily motivated by their policy goals in deciding which cases to file amicus briefs in, but that they are limited in their ability to file by institutional constraints unique to state courts of last resort. This research provides insight into interest group behavior, state courts and the role organized interests play in influencing legal outcomes in the American states.