{"id":3412,"date":"2017-04-03T16:20:04","date_gmt":"2017-04-03T14:20:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/"},"modified":"2024-07-12T18:29:59","modified_gmt":"2024-07-12T16:29:59","slug":"news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"News Supreme Court rulings December 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n Wife suffering from compulsive shopping can be charged for separation
\n<\/u>
\n<\/strong>The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 25842 of Nov. 18, 2013, affirmed that it is possible to charge the separation to the spouse suffering from “compulsive shopping” because although it is a pathology that results in a personality disorder, it does not exclude the fault of the ill spouse. The Supreme Court held that the behaviors engaged in by the spouse, suffering from the aforementioned disorder, constituted a breach of marital duties capable of making the continuation of cohabitation intolerable.<\/span><\/p>\n

A husband who apostrophizes his wife by calling her a “home wrecker” is liable for the crime of insult.
\n<\/u><\/strong>In Judgment no. 43407\/2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a spouse who calls the other spouse a “home wrecker” is liable for the crime of insult, even if the unsuspecting spouse is in another room and is later informed of this by those present. Indeed, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the offense of insult can materialize even if the person subjected to the insult does not directly perceive the offensive expressions addressed to him.<\/span><\/p>\n


\n Hemp cultivation, no strict liability of the farm owner<\/a>.
\n<\/u>
\n<\/strong>According to the Courts of legitimacy (ref. Judgment No. 48120\/2013), house arrest ordered against the owner of a farm in which cannabis plants were cultivated, without his knowledge, by the owner’s father, who turned out to be the real manager of the fund, is unlawful. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that, in the present case, it is impermissible to attribute strict liability to the farm owner.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Wife suffering from compulsive shopping can be charged for separation The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 25842 of Nov. 18, 2013, affirmed that it is possible to charge the separation to the spouse suffering from “compulsive shopping” because although it is a pathology that results in a personality disorder, it does not exclude the fault […]<\/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 December 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-december-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 December 2013 | Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Wife suffering from compulsive shopping can be charged for separation The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 25842 of Nov. 18, 2013, affirmed that it is possible to charge the separation to the spouse suffering from “compulsive shopping” because although it is a pathology that results in a personality disorder, it does not exclude the fault […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-04-03T14:20:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-07-12T16:29:59+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-december-2013\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/\",\"name\":\"News Supreme Court rulings December 2013 | Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-04-03T14:20:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-12T16:29:59+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8b0b860d2b7601ca6a4311f242de2a21\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"News Supreme Court rulings December 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 December 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-december-2013\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"News Supreme Court rulings December 2013 | Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo","og_description":"Wife suffering from compulsive shopping can be charged for separation The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 25842 of Nov. 18, 2013, affirmed that it is possible to charge the separation to the spouse suffering from “compulsive shopping” because although it is a pathology that results in a personality disorder, it does not exclude the fault […]","og_url":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/","og_site_name":"Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo","article_published_time":"2017-04-03T14:20:04+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-07-12T16:29:59+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-december-2013\/","url":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/","name":"News Supreme Court rulings December 2013 | Law firm Randazzo e Roncarolo","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-04-03T14:20:04+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-12T16:29:59+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8b0b860d2b7601ca6a4311f242de2a21"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/news-supreme-court-rulings-december-2013\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"News Supreme Court rulings December 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\/3412"}],"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=3412"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3412\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3433,"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3412\/revisions\/3433"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3412"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3412"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studiolegalevercelli.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3412"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}