- Arts & Culture 6271
- Business & Economics 673
- Computers 319
- Dictionaries & Encyclopedias 81
- Education & Science 77509
- Abstracts 73
- Astrology 5
- Biology 8
- Chemistry 4555
- Coursework 15614
- Culture 8
- Diplomas 317
- Drawings 1596
- Ecology 5
- Economy 81
- English 81
- Ethics, Aesthetics 3
- For Education Students 17690
- Foreign Languages 11
- Geography 3
- Geology 1
- History 90
- Maps & Atlases 5
- Mathematics 12625
- Musical Literature 2
- Pedagogics 21
- Philosophy 22
- Physics 15123
- Political Science 5
- Practical Work 59
- Psychology 65
- Religion 4
- Russian and culture of speech 8
- School Textbooks 7
- Sociology 9
- Summaries, Cribs 86
- Test Answers 162
- Tests 8646
- Textbooks for Colleges and Universities 32
- Theses 7
- To Help Graduate Students 14
- To Help the Entrant 38
- Vetting 407
- Works 13
- Информатика 8
- Engineering 802
- Fiction 708
- House, Family & Entertainment 86
- Law 133
- Website Promotion 70
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 |