Search

Precedent 7 of the Superior Court of Justice should not serve as an illegitimate obstacle to the non-appreciation of special appeals due to the prohibition of “evidence review”. The superior court, in particular the STJ, in the exercise of its constitutionally assigned functions, analyzes (or re-examines) the convincing argument that focuses on the evidence in the judgment of the special appeal. But it restricts its assessment when the claim collides with the need to re-analyze the facts established in the judgment. This, then, is the utopian premise of the court's action. Faced with the insecurity that the summary entry brings to the order that does not confer predictability in acceptance or rejection even in the analysis of the admissibility requirements of exceptional appeals, the present work tries to demonstrate the weak distinction between a question of fact and a question of law, but, above all, it seeks to establish the revaluation as a method of convincing the decision, possible of the appellate appreciation. For this, we adopted premises referring to the judgment of merit of exceptional appeals, we detailed the functions of the superior courts and the complexity in the distinction between a question of fact and of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]