AREsp 1802344 - ACORDAO

Negou-se provimento ao agravo interno porque o recurso especial foi interposto contra decisão monocrática sem o devido exaurimento das instâncias ordinárias, incidindo a Súmula 281/STF e tornando o processamento do recurso especial inadmissível.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Executado/recorrente: Sidney Charles Padilha; Exequentes: Adilson Assanuma e outra
Court: Superior Tribunal de Justiça
Jurisdiction: Brazil
Judgment Date: 10 June 2021
Procedural Posture: Agravo Interno No Agravo Em Recurso Especial / Acórdão (decisão Colegiada)
Outcome: Agravo interno desprovido
Legal Topics: Exaurimento Da Instância De Origem, Admissibilidade Do Recurso Especial, Súmula 281/stf, Decisão Monocrática

Processual Civil Exaurimento Da Instância De Origem Admissibilidade Do Recurso Especial Súmula 281/stf Decisão Monocrática

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Sidney Charles Padilha

Executado/recorrente

Adilson Assanuma e outra

Exequentes

Procedural Posture

Agravo Interno No Agravo Em Recurso Especial / Acórdão (decisão Colegiada)

Legal Issues

1 admissibilidade do recurso especial interposto contra decisão monocrática
2 incidência da Súmula 281/STF
3 necessidade de exaurimento das instâncias ordinárias antes do recurso especial

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Agravo interno desprovido

Orders

Negar provimento ao agravo interno.

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 Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.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.