Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1724/1998 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal when lower court ruling is contradictory and requires oral hearing.

Case Number KKO 1724/1998
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against a High Court decision that was found contradictory and incomplete. The High Court failed to conduct the necessary oral hearing required for the proper handling of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court's judgment could not stand due to these procedural flaws.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Korkein oikeuden lainsäädäntö; The Supreme Court held that a lower court judgment is void if it is contradictory and incomplete, necessitating a remand for the required oral hearing.

Keywords

AI generated
contradictory judgment incomplete ruling oral hearing requirement remand for retrial procedural defect Supreme Court review High Court error
AI generated
kko-precedent_2002_76
Supreme Court dismisses appeal, remands boundary survey case due to violation of equal treatment principle.
kko-other_1999_2183
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding interpretation of objection notice when lower court procedure was erroneous.
kko-other_2020_1662
Supreme Court dismisses appeal against lower courts' rulings on asylum rejection and revocation of residence permit.
kko-other_2020_1661
Supreme Court dismissed appeal, quashing lower court rulings and remitting case for further proceedings.
appeal_1979_eastern-finland__721
Appeal court decision dismissed due to improper presiding judge appointment violating police prosecutor rules.

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

Kysymys asian palauttamisesta, kun hovioikeuden tuomio oli perustelujensa ja tuomiolauselmansa ristiriitaisuuden vuoksi sekava ja epätäydellinen ja kun jutun asianmukainen käsittely olisi edellyttänyt suullisen käsittelyn toimittamista.