{"id":3151,"date":"2017-04-03T16:07:26","date_gmt":"2017-04-03T14:07:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/"},"modified":"2024-07-12T18:45:18","modified_gmt":"2024-07-12T16:45:18","slug":"news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"News Supreme Court rulings November 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

Husband cannot break into ex-wife’s home
\n<\/strong>The Supreme Court in ruling no. 6377 of Feb. 16, 2010, ruled that the conduct engaged in by an ex-husband who breaks into his ex-wife’s home to steal, photocopy and then return documents to be produced in the marriage dissolution hearing constitutes the crime of trespassing. This offense, the Supreme Court points out, is incontestable because in order to gain possession of the copies, the ex-husband had certainly entered the house even though he had no title to do so.<\/span><\/p>\n

Text message revealing husband’s infidelity<\/strong>integrates the crime of harassment
\n Integrates the crime of harassment the conduct engaged in by the person who by making someone aware, by text message, of his or her spouse’s infidelities by also making judgments regarding the fact brought to his or her attention(Supreme Court: ruling 2597\/2013).<\/strong> The legitimacy judges point out that the content of the aforementioned text messages sent was likely to cause harassment and disturbance. In fact, according to the Supreme Court, the offense punished by Article 660 of the Criminal Code protects the tranquility of the offended person.<\/span><\/p>\n

Supreme Court: no extenuating circumstances for anyone who shoots his neighbor’s cat.
\n<\/strong>It has been ruled by the Supreme Court (Judgment No. 44422, Nov. 4, 2013) that anyone who shoots his neighbor’s pet animal is committing the crime provided for in Article 544 of the Criminal Code<\/a>, namely, mistreatment of animals. The Supreme Court Justices, while taking into consideration the hypothesis of “a reaction of the defendant to a situation of annoyance,” point out that this offense is aggravated by the fact that the conduct engaged in by the offender was unnecessary.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Husband cannot break into ex-wife’s home The Supreme Court in ruling no. 6377 of Feb. 16, 2010, ruled that the conduct engaged in by an ex-husband who breaks into his ex-wife’s home to steal, photocopy and then return documents to be produced in the marriage dissolution hearing constitutes the crime of trespassing. This offense, the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1579],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nNews Supreme Court rulings November 2013 | Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"News Supreme Court rulings November 2013 | Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Husband cannot break into ex-wife’s home The Supreme Court in ruling no. 6377 of Feb. 16, 2010, ruled that the conduct engaged in by an ex-husband who breaks into his ex-wife’s home to steal, photocopy and then return documents to be produced in the marriage dissolution hearing constitutes the crime of trespassing. This offense, the […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-04-03T14:07:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-07-12T16:45:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Studio Legale Randazzo e Roncarolo\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Studio Legale Randazzo e Roncarolo\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/\",\"name\":\"News Supreme Court rulings November 2013 | Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-04-03T14:07:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-12T16:45:18+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8b0b860d2b7601ca6a4311f242de2a21\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"News Supreme Court rulings November 2013\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/\",\"name\":\"Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo\",\"description\":\"Law firm Vercelli\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8b0b860d2b7601ca6a4311f242de2a21\",\"name\":\"Studio Legale Randazzo e Roncarolo\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4f932909c7270f43610ba542ce7297f2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4f932909c7270f43610ba542ce7297f2?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Studio Legale Randazzo e Roncarolo\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/author\/studio-legale-randazzo-e-roncarolo\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"News Supreme Court rulings November 2013 | Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"News Supreme Court rulings November 2013 | Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo","og_description":"Husband cannot break into ex-wife’s home The Supreme Court in ruling no. 6377 of Feb. 16, 2010, ruled that the conduct engaged in by an ex-husband who breaks into his ex-wife’s home to steal, photocopy and then return documents to be produced in the marriage dissolution hearing constitutes the crime of trespassing. This offense, the […]","og_url":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/","og_site_name":"Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo","article_published_time":"2017-04-03T14:07:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-07-12T16:45:18+00:00","author":"Studio Legale Randazzo e Roncarolo","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Studio Legale Randazzo e Roncarolo","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/","url":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/","name":"News Supreme Court rulings November 2013 | Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-04-03T14:07:26+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-12T16:45:18+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8b0b860d2b7601ca6a4311f242de2a21"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-november-2013\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"News Supreme Court rulings November 2013"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/","name":"Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo","description":"Law firm Vercelli","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8b0b860d2b7601ca6a4311f242de2a21","name":"Studio Legale Randazzo e Roncarolo","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4f932909c7270f43610ba542ce7297f2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4f932909c7270f43610ba542ce7297f2?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Studio Legale Randazzo e Roncarolo"},"url":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/author\/studio-legale-randazzo-e-roncarolo\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3151"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3151"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3151\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3167,"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3151\/revisions\/3167"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}