AREsp 1792479 - DECISAO

Os embargos foram rejeitados por inexistir omissão; os temas foram apreciados no julgamento do agravo e o acolhimento dependeria do reexame do conjunto fático-probatório, o que é inviável em recurso especial nos termos da Súmula nº 7/STJ.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Embargante: AFFONSO NOGUEIRA DE FREITAS e OUTROS
Court: Superior Tribunal de Justiça
Jurisdiction: Brazil
Judgment Date: 04 November 2024
Procedural Posture: Embargos De Declaração / Decisão
Legal Topics: Embargos De Declaração, Súmula 7/stj, Decadência, Interesse De Agir, Legitimidade Ativa, Exibição De Documentos, Perda Superveniente Do Objeto, Intuito Infringente, Recurso Especial, Agravo

Processo Civil Direito Empresarial Embargos De Declaração Súmula 7/stj Decadência Interesse De Agir Legitimidade Ativa Exibição De Documentos +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

AFFONSO NOGUEIRA DE FREITAS e OUTROS

Embargante

Procedural Posture

Embargos De Declaração / Decisão

Legal Issues

1 omissão quanto a fato novo
2 aplicabilidade da Súmula 7/STJ
3 necessidade de reexame de matéria fático-probatória

Ratio Decidendi

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.