Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2018 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Lippmann, Rafael Knorr
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Pinto, Nelson Luiz |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| 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/21815
|
Resumo: |
Presented thesis consists in an interpretative proposal to art. 966, §5, CPC, which, by matching certain judicial precedents with the legal norm itself, admits the claim to deconstitute decision covered by res judicata when it misapplies judicial precedent. To sustain it, the work investigates both institutes correlated with the pursued objective: judicial action to get over res judicata and precedents. In this way, begins describing that actions’s shape according to CPC/2015, in its conceptual and procedural plans, highlighting the main innovations in relation to its predecessor. After, investigates the cientific relevance of article’s 966, V, CPC, text innovation, specially the literral admition of res judicata desconstitution when it violates the "legal norm" instead of the "law", seeking the right definition to the expression in order to rightly fit it into that action’s form. Finally, the work presentes a comparative analysis of precedent in common law and the one implemented in Brazil by the CPC/2015, identifying characteristics and particularities of the national system to use it, altogether with the conclusions reached so far, to present an intepretation proposal to art. 966, §5º, CPC, in three different plans: objective, subjective and temporal |
