EVELINA, Shane (2022) Juridical Analysis Of The Judge's Dissenting Opinion In The Decision Of Against The Law (A Study On The Decision Of The East Jakarta District Court Number:225/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Tim.). Skripsi thesis, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman.

	PDF (Cover) COVER-Shane Evelina-E1B018017-Skripsi-2022.pdf Download (129kB)
	PDF (Legalitas) LEGALITAS-Shane Evelina-E1B018017-Skripsi-2022.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (975kB)
	PDF (Abstrak) ABSTRAK-Shane Evelina-E1B018017-Skripsi-2022.pdf Download (278kB)
	PDF (BabI) BAB-I-Shane Evelina-E1B018017-Skripsi-FH-2022.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (532kB)
	PDF (BabII) BAB-II-Shane Evelina-E1B018017-Skripsi-FH-2022.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (600kB)
	PDF (BabIII) BAB-III-Shane Evelina-E1B018017-Skripsi-FH-2022.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (403kB)
	PDF (BabIV) BAB-IV-Shane Evelina-E1B018017-Skripsi-FH-2022.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (805kB)
	PDF (BabV) BAB-V-Shane Evelina-E1B018017-Skripsi-FH-2022.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (274kB)
	PDF (DaftarPustaka) DAFTAR PUSTAKA-Shane Evelina-E1B018017-Skripsi-2022.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (279kB)

Abstract

This research is based on the Decision of the East Jakarta District Court Number 225/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Tim which will describe the dissenting opinion of the judge between the Chief Judge and Member II Judge and Member I Judge (dissenting judge) regarding the case of a lawsuit against the law and analyze the legal consequences of a quo Court Decisions. The approach method used in this research is a normative juridical approach. Research data is sourced from secondary data in the form of relevant legislation and literature books. The method of data collection is done by literature study. The analytical method used in this research is normative qualitative. Based on the results of research and data analysis, then it can be described that there was a dissenting opinion from Judge Member I (dissenting judge) which stated that the Plaintiff could not prove the arguments of his lawsuit, the Plaintiff's claim was declared rejected, while the majority judge thought that the act of controlling the certificate and locking the location of the object the dispute by the Defendant occurred. An unlawful act committed by Defendant so that the majority judge handed down an order by partially granting Plaintiff's claim. The legal consequences of the a quo decision are the same as the legal consequences of the decision handed down by the majority judge, this is because the final decision is taken based on a majority opinion (majority opinion).

Actions (login required)

View Item