Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Itä-Suomen HO 02.05.1985 449/85 AI generated

Court of Appeal dismissed appeal allowing unilateral withdrawal of divorce suit after spouse objected to marriage continuation.

Case Number Itä-Suomen HO 02.05.1985 449/85
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding the lower court's decision on a divorce suit. The appellant had previously withdrawn their claim, but the respondent later objected to continuing the marriage, making unilateral withdrawal impossible. The court ruled that procedural requirements for withdrawal were not met once the respondent raised objections.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Civil Procedure Code; Marriage Act: A party cannot unilaterally withdraw a divorce suit after the other party has objected to the continuation of the marriage.

Keywords

AI generated
unilateral withdrawal of suit divorce proceedings marriage continuation objection procedural requirements appeal dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Civil Procedure Code
Marriage Act

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Supreme Court 1945-I-46
Supreme Court 1948-II-40
AI generated
appeal_1980_turku__2524
Court of Appeal grants free legal aid and counsel to a divorce plaintiff whose appeal was previously dismissed.
appeal_1985_helsinki__746
Court dismisses divorce appeal when both parties withdraw claims and continue marriage.
kko-precedent_2017_32
Supreme Court dismisses divorce appeal when spouse dies before judgment, ruling marriage dissolved by death.
appeal_1968_vaasa__x295
Appeal court remands case for inquiry into legal standing and grounds of claim under Civil Procedure Code.
appeal_1972_vaasa__299
Court remands divorce case to lower court for proper handling of cohabitation claim after initial dismissal.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

RO:n tuomittua A:n kanteesta A:n ja B:n avioeroon A oli valituksessaan HO:een ilmoittanut luopuvansa ajamastaan avioerokanteesta. RO:n päätöstä ei muutettu A:n valituksen johdosta, koska A B:n ilmoitettua vastineessaan, ettei hän ollut sopinut avioliiton jatkamisesta A:n kanssa, ei enää HO:ssa yksipuolisesti voinut luopua kanteesta.

Vrt. KKO:1945-I-46, KKO:1948-II-40.

Tirkkonen: Suomen siviiliprosessioikeus II, 1966, s. 76

Reinikainen: Prosessiedellytysten puuttumisen oikeusseuraamuksista, 1958, s. 22

Reinikainen: Jutun palauttamisesta, 1956, s. 96

JFT 1938, s. 161 ja 164 (keskustelukysymys)

Lainvoimainen