- Arts & Culture 6209
- Business & Economics 674
- Computers 316
- Dictionaries & Encyclopedias 74
- Education & Science 76871
- Abstracts 73
- Astrology 4
- Biology 8
- Chemistry 4046
- Coursework 15549
- Culture 8
- Diplomas 316
- Drawings 1595
- Ecology 5
- Economy 76
- English 80
- Ethics, Aesthetics 3
- For Education Students 17567
- Foreign Languages 11
- Geography 3
- Geology 1
- History 88
- Maps & Atlases 5
- Mathematics 12624
- Musical Literature 2
- Pedagogics 19
- Philosophy 22
- Physics 15120
- Political Science 5
- Practical Work 59
- Psychology 63
- Religion 4
- Russian and culture of speech 8
- School Textbooks 7
- Sociology 9
- Summaries, Cribs 87
- Test Answers 160
- Tests 8747
- Textbooks for Colleges and Universities 32
- Theses 7
- To Help Graduate Students 14
- To Help the Entrant 38
- Vetting 385
- Works 13
- Информатика 8
- Engineering 892
- Fiction 706
- House, Family & Entertainment 84
- Law 128
- Website Promotion 68
Suvorov went to court with a claim to the State
Content: S18-182.docx 18,08 kB
Product description
Suvorov appealed to the court to the State Tax Inspectorate of Anapa, as a representative of the heir of the escheated property, to invalidate the certificate of the right to inheritance to 1/2 of 84 home on ul. Bubentsova and recognition of her ownership of this property.
At the court hearing, the plaintiff supplemented her claim with requirements to the spouses Tikhonov and their minor son, who were provided with the disputed dwelling under a contract of employment and who subsequently issued the right of ownership to him in order to privatize, invalidating the order for 1/2 of the specified dwelling house and contract on the transfer of this residential property to Tikhonov’s property. The trial of the case was adjourned in order to properly notify the defendants of Tikhonovs about the time and place of the next trial.
However, at the court hearing, scheduled for March 2, 2003, the Tikhonov’s protesters did not appear and the court did not inform about the reasons for the non-appearance.
Having established that the materials of the case contain a copy of the notice of consideration of the case on March 2, 2003, addressed to Tikhonov - among the persons participating in the case, the court considered the case in their absence and rendered a decision in absentia.
Were there any grounds in this case for making an absent decision? In what order can be abolished absentee solution? What are the features of consideration of the case in absentia procedure?
Additional information
After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.
Feedback
0Period | |||
1 month | 3 months | 12 months | |
0 | 0 | 0 | |
0 | 0 | 0 |