Entscheidung
OGH · 11Os265/71; 12Os165/66; 9Os158/70; 12Os121/71 (12Os122/71; 12Os123/71); 11Os38/72; 11Os98/72 (11Os99/72); 13Os93/72 (13Os94/72); 13Os18/81 (13Os19/81); 10Os134/81; 12Os150/81; 13Os121/82 (13Os122/82); 12Os169/82; 10Os71/84 (10Os74/84); 9Os175/85 (9Os176/85); 13Os113/88; 13Os19/89; 12Os43/90 (12Os44/90); 12Os34/90; 13Os72/90 (13Os73/90); 12Os86/93 (12Os87/93); 13Os64/95 · 21. Mai 1995
11Os265/71; 12Os165/66; 9Os158/70; 12Os121/71 (12Os122/71; 12Os123/71); 11Os38/72; 11Os98/72 (11Os99/72); 13Os93/72 (13Os94/72); 13Os18/81 (13Os19/81); 10Os134/81; 12Os150/81; 13Os121/82 (13Os122/82); 12Os169/82; 10Os71/84 (10Os74/84); 9Os175/85 (9Os176/85); 13Os113/88; 13Os19/89; 12Os43/90 (12Os44/90); 12Os34/90; 13Os72/90 (13Os73/90); 12Os86/93 (12Os87/93); 13Os64/95 · OGH · 21. Mai 1995
Den vollständigen Entscheidungstext findest du im verknüpften RIS-Original.