Litisconsórcio, efeitos da sentença e coisa julgada na tutela dos interesses metaindividuais

A compreensão do fenômeno jurídico como sistema de inclusão é fundamental para a compreensão dos aparatos normativos que regulam a tutela dos interesses metaindividuais. Mais apropriada aos desafios do século XXI, as normas principais deste sistema processual no Brasil, estão expressas na Lei 7.347/85 c/c a Lei 8078/90 e necessária interação com as normas da Constituição Federal que rege a matéria, onde o modelo de Legitimidade ad cansam, deferida e entes sociais públicos e particulares reflete a sua natureza de instrumento de pacificação de conflito social. O fenômeno da pluralidade de partes no processo de tutela coletiva, o destaque à noção processual de terceiro é um pressuposto essencial para a compreensão deste fenômeno em sede de tutela coletiva, cujo litisconsórcio é a expressão maior do fenômeno processual, desprendendo-se a sua construção das relações do direito material que podem originar-se em suas diversas modalidades. O respeito à garantia processual do contraditório e da ampla defesa, como direito e garantia fundamental, importante e necessária ao tecido social, que pode e deve ser exercido sob parâmetros sociais mais elásticos fim onde se inserem as especiais regras do processo de tutela coletiva, criando o legislador pátrio curvaturas de respeito ao seu prisma individual, mas destacando a sua função social, expressas nos parágrafos 1º, 2º e 3º do artigo 103 da Lei 8.078/90. A eficácia da sentença em sede de tutela coletiva, pela sua natureza sempre terá repercussões sobre os interesses de terceiros, aliás destinam-se mesmo à tutela de tais sujeitos, dai se dizer que possuem eficácia ultra partes ou erga omnes, mas distinguem-se dos efeitos erga omnes e ultra partes da coisa julgada, previsto no Capítulo IV do Título III da Lei 8.078/90, que somente excluem-se na forma das curvaturas previstas pelo legislador. Nenhum empecilho haveria da extensão coletiva pro et contra, dos efeitos erga omnes ou ultra partes na coisa julgada na tutela de qualquer dos interesses metaindividuais, sem exceção, porque em nada limitariam a tutela dos interesses individuais dos membros destas coletividades, comunidades ou conjuntos de vítimas pois este não foi o objeto do processo coletivo, mas a cautela exigiu as diversas curvaturas, para deixar a salvo estes interesses individuais no caso de improcedência da ação coletiva, uma vez que no caso de procedência, fixada a responsabilidade global do réu, estando este interesse individual no seu raio de ação, falta-lhe interesse de agir a pretender a tutela particular, basta ser liquidada dentro do processo de execução coletiva.

The Ethics of Implementation: Institutional Remedies and the Lawyer's Role

The issue addressed in this article is whether and to what extent a lawyer has an ethical responsibility to pursue implementation of the remedy in institutional reform litigation. Institutional reform litigation refers to cases in which an individual or class of individuals sues a large organization in order to vindicate constitutional or statutory rights. The types of cases with which this article is concerned are the "public law" type, such as school desegregation, prisoners' rights and patients' rights cases, although included under the rubric of institutional reform can be, inter alia, antitrust, reapportionment and bankruptcy cases. The implementation stage of institutional reform litigation arises after an individual or class of individuals prevails at the liability stage, or pursuant to a settlement, and a court orders the defendant organization to change in order to vindicate the plaintiffs' rights. At that point, the defendant organization, whether it be a prison, mental hospital or school district, usually has the burden of implementing the order. One conclusion drawn is that the ethical duty of the lawyer must always be consistent with the lawyer's "special responsibility for the quality of justice."

L'utilizzabilità degli atti nella fase investigativa. La prova per le indagini preliminari

The doctorate’s theme of research - Abstract My doctorate’s theme of research is about the Investigation in the Italian criminal proceedings. The Italian Code of criminal procedure of 1988 is the fruit of a new ideology that marks a departure from Italy’s prior inquisitorial tradition. According to criminal procedure Code of 1988, an accusatorial system separates the investigation and trial stages and the judge’s decision is based only on evidence collected in oral form in his presence in a public trial containing adversarial dynamics. The Italian Code of 1988 created a separation between criminal investigations and trial. Investigations are conducted by Public Prosecutor: he conducts the investigation phase in order to deem whether to file a formal charge against the defendant or to dismiss the case and the investigative evidence collected should serve only for this purpose. According to so called “inutilizzabilità fisiologica”’s rule, the evidence collected during investigations by prosecutor is not usable during trial by the judge: the results of the investigative efforts displayed by the parties should be kept outside of court. If the proceedings go on to trial, the case shall be deemed with only evidence collected in front of the judge. To create the separation of the trial phase from the investigation stage, there is the double-dossier system. During the investigations, evidence are collected in an investigation dossier. The trial judge will never see the investigation dossier and the trial judge’s decision is based on a new dossier, the trial dossier, with the evidence collected during the trial. The issue of my research is about the investigation, the so called “inutilizzabilità fisiologica”’s rule and also the exclusionary rules that concern the investigative phase and the decisions pronounced during the investigations (for example, the decisions concerning pre-trial confinement). 2 In fact, the exclusionary rule system (so called “inutilizzabilità patologica”) provides that evidence cannot be used in Italian criminal proceedings if it was the result of illegal inquiry.

Under the Crimson Flag: Fahle Burman's Two Trips to the Michigan Supreme Court

Erick Fahle Burman. a Swedish-born, Finnish-speaking labor and political activist, twice had cases argued on his behalf before the Michigan Supreme Court. In People vs. Burman, Burman, along with nine other defendants, had his conviction affirmed by the court and all ten were forced to pay a fine of $25 each for disturbing the peace. In People vs. Immonen, Burman and his co-defendant, Unto Immonen, had their convictions overturned because of improper evidence being admitted in their lower court trial. Though the conviction was overturned, the two men had already spent several months as prisoners at hard labor in Marquette State Prison located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Over twenty-five years separate Burman's two trips to Michigan's high court. On the first occasion, his arrest came less than five years after his arrival as an immigrant to the U. S. On the second occasion, his arrest came less than two years after his return to the state after being away for nearly two decades. On both occasions, Burman was arrested for his involvement with red flags. Though separated by decades, these cases, taken together, are important indicators of the state of Finnish-American radicalism in the years surrounding the red flag incidents and provide interesting insights into the delicacies of political suppression. Examination of these cases within the larger career of Fahle Burman points up his overlooked importance in the history of Finnish-American socialism and communism.

O papel do terceiro facilitador na conciliação de conflitos previdenciários

A conciliação judicial de conflitos previdenciários envolve, em geral, uma proposta de acordo baseada na renúncia pelo indivíduo de parte dos valores do benefício em atraso em um processo no qual a decisão contrária ao entendimento do Instituto Nacional do Segurado Social (INSS) é muito provável. Como regra, há um notório desequilíbrio de poder envolvendo, de um lado, um litigante ocasional (indivíduo) e, de outro, um litigante habitual (INSS). O presente trabalho pretende discutir qual o papel do terceiro facilitador nesse contexto, de modo a legitimar a prática existente e avançar para uma mudança de paradigma. Para tanto, parte-se da tese de que a conciliação deve ser adequada ao conflito que se pretende tratar, cabendo ao terceiro facilitador atuar de acordo com as peculiaridades desse conflito. Desse modo, propõe-se que, para o tratamento do conflito previdenciário, o conceito de conciliador deve ser entendido em termos amplos, abrangendo não apenas o conciliador leigo, mas também o juiz conciliador e o Judiciário como conciliador interinstitucional. Embora cada uma dessas atuações possua características próprias, sustenta-se que o ponto em comum é o respeito a um devido processo legal mínimo que possibilite a existência de uma base adequada de poder e que permita, assim, a tomada de uma decisão informada pelas partes. Dessa forma, a flexibilidade instrumental própria da conciliação não impediria o estabelecimento de parâmetros mínimos da atuação do conciliador. Por isso, tendo como limite a tomada de uma decisão informada, o conciliador atuaria por meio de estratégias variadas, aproximando-se e distanciando-se das partes, com maior ou menor interferência, de acordo com as características do caso apresentado. Conclui-se que, com a atuação conjunta e coordenada das diversas espécies de conciliador é possível aprimorar qualitativamente a conciliação de conflitos previdenciários.

Plea in the case of Hamilton v. Saunders, 1763

Plea in response to the plaintiff's declaration. Signed: (Charles) Pinckney, defendant's attorney, and John Rutledge (plaintiff's attorney?). Note on verso: Filed 4th May 1763.

Notice of trial in the case of Jonathan Fish [et al.] v. William Betts, 12 April 1774

Document addressed to Thomas Hicks (attorney for the defendant) informing him that Scott (attorney for the plaintiff) intends to bring the case to trial "at the next Supreme Court of Judicature to be held for the Province of New York." Signed by Scott.

Bond to Clement Maxfield, 30 March 1664

Stoughton's bond for forty pounds to the constable of Dorchester, Massachusetts, guaranteeing the appearance of Daniel Elders at court. Elders was the defendant in a suit brought by Mitchel Bacon of Woburn against Daniel Elders of Dorchester.

Subpoena in Cocke v. Tye, 12 July 1733

Subpoena to answer a petition by James Powell Cocke. Signed by William Hamlin.

[ Order to the sheriff of Bucks County], 1731

An order to the sheriff of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, for twelve men to serve on a jury in the trial of John Borrowes, for an unspecified crime. Signed: Jeremiah Langhorne (justice of the peace); dated 14 June 1731. With seal. With this document (originally attached) is the list of jurors chosen to serve at the trial.

Samuel Hazlet puts in his place James Duane his attorney against Thomas Dignel in a plea of trespass against the case, 1757

Title from verso.

Notes on cases in Barnstable County, 1791

Pamphlet containing notes on various cases, including a case "for not delivering goods put on board the defendant's vessel" and another "for concealing a pregnancy."

Opinions in cases of debt, 1748-1749

Opinions rendered in cases brought against Thomas Barker, executor of the estate of Robert Forstor, by James and Roger Barlow (executors of the estate of Thomas Forster), Sibylla Price, and Richard Foster. The attorney for all plaintiffs was Samuel Swann.

[ Bond of James Vansant and Richard Vanhorne], 1753

Bond signed by William Buckley, justice of the peace for Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

The examination of John Owen late of New Jersey brought before me Jeremiah Langhorne ..., 1725

Title from first line of text.