Legislator Case Law & Legislation
11 04 126 • KG LU 11 04 126 AI generated

Waiver of Right to Re-examine Witnesses Due to Untimely Objection Regarding Appellate Panel Composition

Case Number 11 04 126
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellant sought a retrial of witness testimony in the appellate court, arguing that none of the original trial judges who heard the testimony were present on the appellate panel, which implicated the principle of immediacy in the limited scope recognized by the cantonal civil procedure code. The court reasoned that because the structure of the court composition could change before the main hearing, and since the parties did present their case directly to the judging panel in the appeal, the immediacy principle was satisfied; therefore, the appellant's failure to raise a timely objection regarding the composition of the original panel, analogous to a delayed recusal request under procedural rules, resulted in the waiver of the right to demand a re-examination of witnesses on appeal.

Legislator headnote

Official

§§ 40, 109 und 211 ZPO. Keine Wiederholung der Zeugenbefragung vor zweiter Instanz bei verspäteter Rüge, vor erster Instanz habe der Instruktionsrichter im Spruchkörper nicht mitgewirkt. § 40 Abs. 2 ZPO ist analog anzuwenden. | Zivilprozessrecht

Keywords

AI generated
untimely recusal request waiver of right hearing of the parties procedural objections appealability of remand decision Civil Procedure Code

Cited Legislation

AI generated
AI generated

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§§ 40, 109 und 211 ZPO

These provisions are cited in the decision's concluding statement regarding the refusal of witness re-examination.

§ 40 Abs. 2 ZPO

This provision concerning the request for recusal is applied analogously to reject the objection regarding the composition of the court.

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

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · I. Kammer

Rechtsgebiet: · Zivilprozessrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 13.05.2005

Fallnummer: · 11 04 126

LGVE: · 2005 I Nr. 29

Leitsatz: · §§ 40, 109 und 211 ZPO. Keine Wiederholung der Zeugenbefragung vor zweiter Instanz bei verspäteter Rüge, vor erster Instanz habe der Instruktionsrichter im Spruchkörper nicht mitgewirkt. § 40 Abs. 2 ZPO ist analog anzuwenden.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.