Brazilian Union of Composers v. Arthur Rodrigues Villarinho
Brazil Supreme Court
Extraordinary Review 201819-S (Rio de Janeiro) RE-201819 (2005)

- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
The Brazilian Union of Composers (the union) (plaintiff) was a nonprofit organization in Brazil that expelled one of its members, Arthur Rodrigues Villarinho (defendant), for his violation of the organization’s bylaws. Rodrigues Villarinho sued the union, alleging that the organization had failed to respect certain procedural guarantees provided by the Brazilian constitution, including the right to defend himself against the accusations before his expulsion from the organization. The lower court agreed with Rodrigues Villarinho, holding that the union had violated his constitutional rights. The union appealed to the Brazil Supreme Court. Justice Northfleet wrote the rapporteur opinion, which held that constitutional guarantees such as the right to defense do not extend to private institutions, explaining that private organizations should be free to regulate their own operation and that individuals joining these organizations presumably know and accept the private entity’s rules. However, upon reexamination, the Brazil Supreme Court declined to adopt Justice Northfleet’s rapporteur opinion, and it instead adopted the opinion authored by Justice Ferreira Mendes.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ferreira Mendes, J.)
Concurrence (Barbosa, J.)
Concurrence (De Mello, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.