作者查詢 / CrazyMarc
作者 CrazyMarc 在 PTT [ politics ] 看板的留言(推文), 共2182則
限定看板:politics
看板排序:
全部politics2182LAW1074stationery672Insurance464Policy262L_SecretGard240CFP234KMT223Lawyer200DPP188PttLifeLaw141HatePolitics121Fund64calligraphic61Suit_Style52Steam49HolySee45LegalTheory40B93A013XX34Examination34Wargaming32ChineseMed26Gossiping19About_Life17CrossStrait17tax16W-Philosophy13L_LifePlan12B95A013XX10ID_Multi10B94A013XX9Beauty9TANAKA9RIPE_gender8LawsuitSug7medache7Salesperson7SUN7toberich7FORMULA16Marxism6GreenParty4MCU-LAW4a-diane3Atheism3CTSH923033drawing3money3NEW_ROC3NTU-PDC3NTUBIME-1023PCCU_MLAW3StupidClown3Tobacco3TSU3B93A012XX2B97A013XX2HsinTien2Japandrama2Kojima2KOTDFansClub2MetalGear2NTULawR972PttLaw2Scorpio2sex2AGEC941AGECR901Agronomy-931B911010XX1B91303XXX1B923022XX1B923023XX1B92A013XX1B933021XX1B96A013XX1bioinfo_lab1CATCH1CFantasy1CGSH87th_3151ChthoniC1civil911civil921cksh81st3021Coffee1DummyHistory1DYU1Economics1Education1EMS1ESOE-911ESOE-921FJU_Psy961FLAT_CLUB1Geotecheng941INSECT-921KS92-3061KUAS_5880321media-chaos1Military1Militarylife1MountainClub1MU1NCCU07_Ghis1NCCU_CivLaw1NCCU_CriLaw1NCCU_FunLaw1NCCU_LSWLAW1NCCU_PubLaw1NTOU-MME-99B1NTPUprolaw981NTU-EM921NTU-EM931NTU-EM941NTU96thLIS1NTUAC911NtuDormF51NTUDormG11NtuDormM31NtuDormM51NTUDormM61NTUDormM71NtuDormM81NTUEE1061NTUEE1071NTUEOE_R306A1NTUF-921NTUF-941NTUFM-911NTUGIEE_EDA1NTUHistory941NTULawR931NTUMEB91-B1NTUMEB93-A1NTUMEB93-B1NTUMSE-911NTUMSE-921NTUMSE-931NTUMSE-941NTUnba20051NTUnSA1NTUSA1P2PSoftWare1PC_Shopping1Philosophy1PoliticLaw1PresidentLi1Printer_scan1PU_Law1PublicAffair1PublicServan1shoes1single1study1Tainan1TNFSH94011TTU-AFL1TunHua05t3111TW-history1TYSH49-1101Warfare1<< 收起看板(161)
2F推:松機這片土地可有價值了...223.142.45.154 07/28 01:24
3F→:拆掉松機,周邊建管也可能會鬆綁223.142.45.154 07/28 01:25
1F推:有的文章根本沒有回應的價值...118.171.174.170 05/20 20:47
1F推:民進黨杯葛,馬英九不用負責嗎?42.79.33.166 03/23 18:16
43F→:連證所稅屬於資本利得稅的一種都不知道?42.73.204.112 11/03 16:27
1F→:會發生高院和最高對幹不更證明發回意旨42.71.177.148 09/25 00:32
2F→:根本拘束不了高院...42.71.177.148 09/25 00:32
3F→:你引的這判決,更證明違背發回意旨不是42.71.177.148 09/25 00:34
4F→:判決違背法令事由42.71.177.148 09/25 00:34
5F→:最高院的發回理由是「自嫌理由不備」42.71.177.148 09/25 00:34
6F→:仍非判決違背法令,不過是論理環節中的42.71.177.148 09/25 00:39
7F→:一環。42.71.177.148 09/25 00:39
8F→:最後結論都是調查未盡、理由不備等42.71.177.148 09/25 00:40
9F→:就是沒有「違背發回意旨」這一項42.71.177.148 09/25 00:40
10F→:如果更審法院必須遵循發意旨有法律效力42.71.177.148 09/25 00:42
11F→:的話,最高法院大可以「原判決違背發回42.71.177.148 09/25 00:43
12F→:意旨」作為原判決違背法令之事由,不必42.71.177.148 09/25 00:43
13F→:再加上調查未盡理由不備這些用語42.71.177.148 09/25 00:44
14F→:是你一直分不清事實上拘束和法律上拘束42.71.177.148 09/25 00:45
15F→:以下是下級審不遵守上級審發回指示的法118.171.162.141 09/25 18:45
16F→:律效果118.171.162.141 09/25 18:45
17F→:上面推文是你文章中的敘述,不然你說的118.171.162.141 09/25 18:45
18F→:法律效果非指法律上拘束力?118.171.162.141 09/25 18:46
19F→:斷章取義118.171.162.141 09/25 19:29
20F→:誰教你刑事訴訟可以適用民事訴訟法?223.143.105.160 09/25 21:40
21F→:熟知行政訴訟法修法歷程的都知道,我國223.143.105.160 09/25 22:13
22F→:行政訴訟法的確大量參考民事訴訟法,甚223.143.105.160 09/25 22:13
23F→:至是准用民事訴訟法規定,但是刑事訴訟223.143.105.160 09/25 22:14
24F→:法的體系則根本是和民事訴訟法搭不上邊223.143.105.160 09/25 22:14
25F→:刑訴這幾年也都有在修法,偏偏這一條就223.143.105.160 09/25 22:16
26F→:是沒有抄。拿民訴、行訴來比真是頗ㄏ223.143.105.160 09/25 22:17
44F→:事實上拘束力和法律上拘束力是兩回事42.71.177.148 09/24 23:32
45F→:比如G2更一不鳥前G3理由,如果G2更一後42.71.177.148 09/24 23:33
46F→:來被G3維持,該G2更一和G3維持的判決,42.71.177.148 09/24 23:33
47F→:仍不能說是有判決違背法令。42.71.177.148 09/24 23:34
48F→:在民事訴訟則不同,更一不鳥G3發回意旨42.71.177.148 09/24 23:34
49F→:的話,若G3還不予糾正,是可以構成再審42.71.177.148 09/24 23:35
50F→:事由。42.71.177.148 09/24 23:35
10F推:r大幹嘛浪費自己時間?42.79.84.95 09/21 02:28
20F→:不足與言118.171.173.17 08/25 15:21
26F→:口嫌體正直╮(﹀_﹀)╭118.171.173.17 08/25 21:06
15F推:大家都好閒啊...我最近寧可打打電動...111.241.133.156 01/12 17:39
16F推:吳敏誠案會有stare decisis嗎?好玩111.241.133.156 01/12 17:41
17F→:以後打行政訴訟專找帥法官那庭判決抄111.241.133.156 01/12 17:42
94F→:法庭不能剝奪生命,戰爭可以呦 ^.<1.171.123.209 01/04 15:34