Cafore strength
Cassation and review before the Supreme Court of Justice.
We handle cassation appeals, reviews and highly technical decisions before the Supreme Court when the case requires examining the judgment, the case file, the evidence, the grounds and the risk of forfeiting a decisive procedural opportunity.
Value for the case
Cassation appeal with a real viability filter.
A cassation appeal and a review are not a general second opinion about being dissatisfied with a judgment. They require identifying specific legal errors, viable grounds, evidentiary limits and the actual effect the Court can produce.
Where we add the most value
Situations in which this strength changes the strategy.
In extraordinary appeals, the first advantage is to distinguish a legitimate grievance from a technically defensible claim. We examine the case file to assess timeliness, admissibility, grounds, evidence and practical effect before presenting a strategy before the Court.
Judgments that close a decisive stage
We assess whether the judgment allows for a serious extraordinary appeal or whether it is advisable to prepare another route before investing time in an unviable cassation appeal.
Errors of law or of evidence
We look for possible claims based on improper application, mistaken interpretation, assessment of evidence, incongruence, insufficient reasoning or impairment of procedural guarantees.
Criminal, civil, commercial or family cases
The reading changes according to the practice area: a criminal conviction, a contractual dispute, a corporate controversy or a family asset decision are not reviewed in the same way.
Review after a final and enforceable judgment
When an exceptional ground, new evidence or a serious fact appears, we analyze whether the review can open a real opportunity before the Court.
When it becomes critical
Signs that the matter needs a finer reading.
The client needs a frank answer: whether it is worth insisting, how the claim should be framed and what risks each step entails. That analysis avoids spending the extraordinary opportunity on a weak petition or on an impossible expectation.
There is a second-instance decision and you need to know whether there is a real ground for a cassation appeal.
The case file shows possible errors of law, assessment of evidence or procedural guarantees.
A fact, item of evidence, or exceptional ground emerges that may open a post-judgment route.
What we review
Four questions before acting.
The initial review focuses on what can change the outcome: the judgment, legal errors, evidence, deadlines and consequences for liberty, assets, reputation or the continuity of the litigation.
Does the judgment allow for an extraordinary claim?+
We separate disagreements with the decision from errors of law, incongruence, nullities, breaches of guarantees or defects in the assessment of evidence that may structure a serious appeal.
Does the case file preserve the procedural opportunity?+
We verify notifications, the judgment becoming final, prior appeals, standing, deadlines, the amount in controversy where applicable and the substantiation requirements, so as not to build a strategy on a closed avenue.
What real effect could the Court produce?+
Identifying an error is not enough. We assess whether a possible success would change the decision, order a new ruling, protect a guarantee or open a useful negotiation.
Is there a smarter alternative route?+
When the cassation appeal is not viable, we consider review, a constitutional action against a judicial ruling, an incidental motion, negotiation, enforcement, compliance or defense in a connected proceeding.
Work map
How we turn the problem into a decision-making route.
Judgment, appeals, evidence taken, relevant proceedings, and prior decisions.
Separating grievances from legal errors that can indeed sustain an extraordinary appeal.
Measuring deadlines, admissibility, effects on liberty, assets, reputation or a parallel strategy.
Prepare a complaint, viability opinion, brief, or correction plan depending on the case.
Connected legal routes
The value lies in fitting the right pieces together.
Strategy before the high courts requires combining procedural technique, evidentiary analysis, and a commercial reading of risk. The appeal must be written to clear demanding filters, not to repeat trial-court arguments.
Civil and commercial cassation
Legal or evidentiary errors in contractual, corporate, asset-related, or liability disputes.
Criminal cassation
Convictions, acquittals, nullities, procedural guarantees, evaluation of evidence, and the framing of grounds before the Criminal Chamber.
Interlocutory appeal
When the discussion begins with the denial or granting of the appeal and the procedural opportunity must be protected.
Action for review
Extraordinary post-judgment grounds that demand highly precise evidence, timing, and strategy.
Constitutional relief against judicial rulings
An exceptional route that only makes sense if there is a verifiable constitutional defect and not mere disagreement.
Concrete results
The review must yield a decision, not just a conversation.
When the review is finished, the client should know whether there is an extraordinary path, what procedural cost it carries, and which document is best to prepare.
- 01Viability assessment
- 02Grounds matrix
- 03Structured complaint or brief
- 04Procedural timeline
- 05Action plan before the Court
Applied legal analysis
Admissibility, grounds, and procedural timing.
The client needs a frank answer: whether it is worth insisting, how the claim should be framed and what risks each step entails. That analysis avoids spending the extraordinary opportunity on a weak petition or on an impossible expectation.
When it is not worth insisting
An extraordinary appeal may be legally unviable even when the judgment seems unfair. If the problem is a fresh review of the facts with no clear statutory ground, a generic evidentiary grievance, or a matter already settled, it is best to say so early and prepare another route.
Errors that really can change the case
We look for flaws with real impact: improper application of the law, erroneous interpretation, lack of reasoning, disregard of precedent, inconsistency, violation of due process, or an evidentiary reading incompatible with the applicable standard.
The case file governs
The technique of the appeal depends on what was stated and proven. That is why we review the complaint, response, hearings, evidence, pleadings, ordinary appeals, and judgments to determine what can be raised without inventing a different case.
The Court is not a third instance
Cassation and review demand precision. The brief must carry a clean legal thesis, well-ordered grounds, a demonstration of the error, and a request consistent with the effect the Supreme Court of Justice can produce.
Full legal support
Strategic litigation when the case calls for a different reading.
If the matter combines an adverse judgment, asset risk, criminal liability, or a business dispute, Cafore can integrate the extraordinary review with the main litigation strategy.
Frequently asked questions
Short answers to decide better.
Does every adverse judgment allow for cassation?+
No. Cassation requires specific grounds, requirements, and a particular technique. The review tells you whether there is a defensible ground or whether another route is preferable.
What documents are needed to assess viability?+
Judgments, the complaint, the response, relevant hearings or records, evidence, appeals filed, and proof of notification or finality.
Do you also review criminal cassation?+
Yes. In criminal matters we analyze convictions, acquittals, nullities, procedural guarantees, the evaluation of evidence, and strategy before the Supreme Court.
Is the action for review the same as cassation?+
No. Review is exceptional and usually arises from later or special facts, evidence, or grounds. It requires a different reading from cassation.
Can you advise that the appeal should not be filed?+
Yes. Part of the value lies in avoiding unviable appeals and steering the client toward a more proportionate option.
Can the opinion become a formal complaint?+
When there is viability, the review can advance toward a cassation complaint, an action for review, a technical brief, or a complementary strategy.
Spanish
English
Portuguese
Chinese