Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
I 2019 33 • VG SZ I 2019 33 KI-generiert

Stay of Execution Denial Upheld in Boundary Dispute

Geschäftsnummer I 2019 33
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Schweiz · Kanton Schwyz (CH-SZ)
Entscheiddatum

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

A party filed a complaint against a decision that denied their application for a stay of execution, which was sought pending a principal action concerning a dispute over property boundaries and easements, where the lower court had determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate a high likelihood of success in the main action or that irreparable harm would result from the immediate enforcement of the contested decision. The court upheld the denial of the stay, reasoning that the movant did not meet the necessary high threshold of probability for success in the principal case, nor was there sufficient evidence to establish that the continuation of the current situation pending the main litigation would cause harm that could not be adequately remedied by subsequent compensation if the movant ultimately prevailed.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Stay of Execution Denial Upheld in Boundary Dispute: The court upheld the denial of the stay, reasoning that the movant did not meet the necessary high threshold of probability for success in the principal case, nor was there sufficient evidence to establish that the continuation of the current situation pending the main litigation would cause harm that could not be adequately remedied by subsequent compensation if the movant ultimately prevailed.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Vollstreckungsaufschub Fortsetzungsbegehren Widerspruchsklage Klagegrund begründeter Entscheid Kompetenzkonfliktbeilegung Invalidenversicherung (Assistenzbeitrag) | Invalidenversicherung
KI-generiert

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n I 2019 33 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 8. August 2019 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n lic.iur. Gion Tomaschett, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n Dr.med. Bernhard Zumsteg, Richter Dr.med. Pierre Lichtenhahn, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n MLaw Joëlle Sigrist, Gerichtsschreiberin |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | \n Parteien · \n A.________, \n Beschwerdeführerin,