The Judge's Evaluation Between Conflicting Expert Opinions: Analysis of Supreme Court Order 15596/2025
We delve into the important principle established by Supreme Court Order no. 15596/2025, which clarifies how a judge can legitimately favor the latest court-appointed expert's opinion in case of conflicting opinions, by providing a solid and coherent justification. Discover the implications for civil proceedings.
Medical Liability and Mediation: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the 90-Day Term with Order No. 15466/2025
The Court of Cassation, with Order No. 15466 of 2025, intervenes on the Gelli-Bianco Law, establishing that the 90-day term for initiating legal proceedings after mediation does not apply to claims for damages arising from medical liability, offering clarity and protecting patients' access to justice.
Biological Damage and Witness Testimony: The Supreme Court with Order no. 15444/2025 Clarifies Limits
Order 15444 of 2025 from the Court of Cassation reiterates a fundamental principle regarding compensation for biological damage: witness testimony cannot substitute for medico-legal objectivity. An in-depth analysis of the limits and conditions for ascertaining pathologies not found by the Medical Legal Expert (CTU), essential for those seeking justice.
Claims Made and Sunset Clause: The Supreme Court with Order no. 15447/2025 Clarifies Contractual Validity
Order no. 15447 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation analyzes the validity of "impure" claims made clauses and the impact of the absence of a sunset clause in civil liability insurance contracts, providing clarity on the requirement of the contract's concrete cause. An essential analysis for professionals and insured parties.
Jurisdiction and Connection in Road Accident Damages: Cassation Court Order 15817/2025
The 15817/2025 Order of the Court of Cassation outlines the boundaries of jurisdictional competence in cases of road accidents with multiple injured parties. We analyze how the connection between cases influences the division between the Justice of the Peace and the Court, and the crucial implications for litigation strategy in compensation claims.
Limits on Document Production in Appeals and Cassation Appeals: Order 15756/2025
Order 15756/2025 of the Court of Cassation clarifies the strict limits on the production of new documents in appeals and the stringent consequences of failing to raise objections at that stage, preventing subsequent claims in cassation. An essential guide to understanding the importance of procedural diligence and its implications for the defense strategy of lawyers and litigants.
When the Notary is Not Liable: Excusable Error in Real Estate Sales According to Order No. 15676/2025
An important ruling by the Court of Cassation clarifies the limits of a notary's professional liability in real estate sales. Discover how the error of the land registry official can exclude the notary's fault and what implications this decision has for buyer protection and professional diligence.
Expansion of Defenses in Opposition to a Payment Order: Analysis of the Italian Court of Cassation's Order No. 15634 of 2025
The Court of Cassation, with Order 15634/2025, redefines the boundaries of opposition to a payment order, admitting claims from third parties connected to the main dispute. A turning point that simplifies procedures and protects the rights of all parties involved, ensuring greater efficiency and completeness of the judgment.
Forfeiture Clause in Insurance Contracts: Ruling 15605/2025 and Article 1341 of the Civil Code
An in-depth analysis of Ruling 15605/2025 reveals the crucial importance of specific approval for insurance clauses limiting the right to compensation. Discover how to protect your rights as an insured party against fraudulent exaggeration of damages and the implications of rules on unfair terms.
The Administrative Nature of Material Error Correction: An Analysis of Order No. 16032/2025
We delve into the recent Order 16032/2025 of the Court of Cassation concerning the nature of the material error correction procedure. Discover why such corrections cannot alter the balance of interests in a judgment and the implications of this ruling for the parties involved.