Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
V CSK 465/18 AI generated

Supreme Court rejects plaintiff's request to clarify and explain the reasoning of a prior Supreme Court order.

Case Number V CSK 465/18
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to supplement and explain the reasoning of a previous Supreme Court order. The plaintiff, K. H., sought clarification regarding the court's decision against them in a personality rights dispute. The court rejected the request because the prior order was already sufficiently reasoned and no new facts or arguments justified a revision.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 200 § 1 k.p.c.; Art. 200 § 2 k.p.c.: A party's request to supplement or explain the reasoning of a Supreme Court order is rejected if the original decision is already fully reasoned and the request lacks new factual or legal grounds.

Keywords

AI generated
Supreme Court order personality rights procedural clarification reasoning explanation motion rejection civil procedure supplementary request

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 200 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 200 § 2 k.p.c.

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

Sygn. akt V CSK 465/18 POSTANOWIENIE Dnia 16 lipca 2020 r.Sąd Najwyższy w składzie: SSN Roman Trzaskowski w sprawie z powództwa K. H.‎przeciwko A. K.‎o ochronę dóbr osobistych,‎na posiedzeniu niejawnym w Izbie Cywilnej w dniu 16 lipca 2020 r.,‎na skutek wniosku powódki o uzupełnienie i wyjaśnienie podstaw ‎uzasadnienia postanowienia Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 22 sierpnia 2020 r. ‎sygn. akt V CSK (…), odrzuca wniosek.