Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2018 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Zampar Júnior, José Américo
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Lopes, João Batista |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso embargado |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Direito
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/21760
|
Resumo: |
The purpose of this dissertation was to answer the question whether there is only one single moment and no other moment to produce the evidence in the process. In order to answer the question, we investigated the possibility of producing evidence in appeals. The research was developed under a theoretical-doctrinal bias, analyzing four distinct aspects of the procedural phenomenon: the parties, the judge, the appeals and the evidence. It was analyzed when the parties can produce evidence in a court seat, the legal action of the trial for the production of evidence, which features involve the production of evidence and which evidence be produced after the typical investigation phase. This dissertation traces the beacons so that evidence can be produced after the time provided for procedural instruction. It was concluded that it is possible to produce evidence in a court seat, but this is not a rule, but an exception to the system and clarifies and complements the factual-evidential framework of the case or allows the decision to reflect the current state of the litigious object, with the insertion of facts and evidence supervenientes in the process |
