Art. 189 Bundesgesetz vom 11. April 1889 über Schuldbetreibung und Konkurs (SchKG)

ZZ.1982.9 · so (Art. 189 SchKG)

Debtor Successfully Appeals Bankruptcy Based on Incompetent Issuance of Payment Order

Cited in the introductory summary alongside Art. 188 SchKG regarding the subject matter of the decision.

14.2018.37 · ti (art. 189 cpv. 2 LEF)

Creditor Bankruptcy Dismissal Upheld Due to Inadmissible Appeal on Promissory Note Enforcement

The court uses the non-application of this article (by omission) to justify the inadmissibility of the appeal in bankruptcy proceedings involving a bill of exchange.

AbR.1998.99.Nr.34 · ow (Art. 189 Abs. 2 und Art. 173 SchKG)

Bill of Exchange Enforcement: Scope of Review for Collection Orders

Cited as the legal basis for the suspension of proceedings by the cantonal court president.

14.2009.25 · ti (Art. 189 cpv. 2 LEF)

Creditor Bankruptcy Based on Promissory Note Execution: Appeal Inadmissibility

This provision is implicitly the main ground for the decision, as the court explicitly states that the appeal is inadmissible because this article excludes the possibility of appeal to the higher judicial authority (the Appellate Court) in this specific type of bankruptcy judgment arising from a bill of exchange procedure.

14.2004.125 · ti (art. 189 LEF)

Bankruptcy Appeal Inadmissibility Regarding Bill of Exchange Debt

The decision declares the appeal inadmissible because decisions regarding granting or refusing bankruptcy in bill of exchange matters are exclusively subject to a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, as stated in the dispositive order 1.

14.2004.125 · ti (art. 189 LEF)

Bankruptcy Appeal Inadmissibility Regarding Bill of Exchange Debt

This provision is cited in the reasoning section immediately before the dispositive orders, justifying the court's jurisdiction/action, although its primary application is procedural/jurisdictional.

14.2001.9 · ti (art. 189 LEF)

Bankruptcy Appeal Dismissed for Inadmissibility in Summary Proceedings

This article, along with art. 188 LEF, is cited in the preamble to the dispositive as part of the legal basis for the decision, which dismisses the appeal as inadmissible.

14.2000.92 · ti (art. 189 LEF)

Bankruptcy Appeal Inadmissibility in Bill Execution Matter

The appeal was declared inadmissible based on the reasoning related to this article, which governs appealability in summary debt enforcement proceedings.

14.1998.61 · ti (art. 188 e 189 LEF)

Debtor's Appeal Against Bankruptcy Declaration in Bill of Exchange Proceeding Dismissed as Inadmissible

These articles (concerning execution and bill of exchange proceedings) are explicitly cited immediately before the final ruling section.

14.1998.46 · ti (art. 188 e 189 LEF)

Appeal of Summary Bankruptcy Ruling Rejection

Cited in the final ruling preamble, relevant to the decision on the merits (declaratory judgment on bankruptcy).

14.1995.205 · ti (art. 188 e 189 LEF)

Appealability of Bankruptcy Declaration in Summary Execution Proceedings

These articles are cited as the basis for the court's decision regarding the inadmissibility of the appeal.

14.1995.205 · ti (art. 189 cpv. 2 LEF)

Appealability of Bankruptcy Declaration in Summary Execution Proceedings

This provision is cited in the reasoning to explain why the appeal against the declaration of bankruptcy in summary bill proceedings is not permitted.

14.1995.108 · ti (art. 188 e 189 LEF)

Bill of Exchange Bankruptcy Appeal Inadmissibility

These articles concerning bankruptcy proceedings were cited when the court ruled on the merits of the case (declaring the appeal inadmissible).

14.1995.8 · ti (art. 189 LEF)

Bankruptcy Appeal Inadmissibility in Bill of Exchange Proceedings

Although cited in the preamble to the final orders, this provision is related to the legal basis for decisions on the permissibility of the appeal, which the court ultimately declared inadmissible.

OG 1992 53 · lu (Art. 189 Abs. 2 SchKG)

Debtor's Appeal of Bankruptcy Order Following Unchallenged Bill of Exchange Enforcement Dismissed

Cited as the basis for why the court could not treat the appeal as a reformative recourse despite the unique circumstances.