projekte
OG 1991 24 ΓÇó General renewal of evidence motions is insufficient on appeal
OG 1991 24Übriges Gericht15.07.1991Dismissed
The appellate court held that a party’s generally framed request to renew the evidence motions made before the lower court does not satisfy the procedural minimum requirements. It is not for the appellate instance to comb through the first-instance record to determine which evidence motions might correspond to which factual assertions in the appeal brief. The court confirmed its settled practice and disregarded the request.
A general request on appeal to renew evidence motions filed before the lower court does not satisfy the minimum requirements of appellate pleading; such a motion is ineffective and may be disregarded. It is not the task of the appellate court to search the record of the first instance to identify which earlier evidence motions might relate to which factual allegations raised in the appeal brief (confirmation of settled practice).
Ein allgemein formulierter Antrag einer Partei auf Erneuerung der bei der Vorinstanz gestellten Beweisanträge genügt den prozessualen Mindestanforderungen nicht und ist daher unbeachtlich. Es kann nicht Sache der Appellationsinstanz sein, in den erstinstanzlichen Akten danach zu fahnden, welche dort gestellten Beweisanträge allenfalls auf welche Tatsachenbehauptungen in der Appellationsbegründung ausgerichtet sein könnten (Bestätigung der konstanten Praxis).