Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 476/1998 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal against lower court for failing to hear respondent after Supreme Court ruling.

Case Number KKO 476/1998
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal because the Court of First Instance failed to hear the respondent after a prior Supreme Court decision on the same shares. The respondent argued that requesting a written explanation was unnecessary given the existing precedent, while the lower court proceeded without consultation. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court's failure to consult the respondent constituted a procedural error warranting the appeal's success.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

KKO 26 luku 6 § 1 mom; The Supreme Court allows an appeal when a lower court fails to hear a party after a prior Supreme Court decision has resolved the same legal issue between different parties.

Keywords

AI generated
share ownership rights procedural error failure to hear party prior Supreme Court decision appeal admissibility

Cited Legislation

AI generated
KKO 26 luku 6 § 1 mom
AI generated
kko-other_1995_1214
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when lower court rejects claim on grounds not raised by respondent.
kko-other_2001_1617
Supreme Court dismissed appeal where lower court awarded price reduction instead of full restitution for property error.
kko-precedent_2014_81
Supreme Court dismisses fraud charge because appellate court convicted defendant of a different act than charged.
kko-precedent_1995_79
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where lower court relied on new evidence without requesting defendant's response.
kko-precedent_2011_103
Supreme Court quashes conviction for theft, ruling defendant was convicted of a different act than charged.

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

Hovioikeus otti asunto-osakkeiden murto-osan omistusoikeutta koskevassa asiassa vastaajaa kuulematta erityisestä syystä huomioon muutoksenhakijan määräajan jälkeen hovioikeudelle toimittaman Korkeimman oikeuden tuomion, jossa oli ratkaistu kysymys samojen osakkeiden toisen murto-osan omistusoikeudesta eri osapuolten kesken. Hovioikeus kumosi alioikeuden ratkaisun vastaajan vahingoksi pääosiltaan samoilla perusteilla kuin mitä Korkeimman oikeuden tuomiossa oli lausuttu.

Kysymys siitä, oliko kirjallisen selityksen pyytäminen ollut vastaajalta ilmeisen tarpeetonta.

OK 26 luku 6 § 1 mom