{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Meu site jur\u00eddico","provider_url":"https:\/\/meusitejuridico.editorajuspodivm.com.br","author_name":"Rodrigo Leite","author_url":"https:\/\/meusitejuridico.editorajuspodivm.com.br\/author\/rodrigoleiterodrigoleite\/","title":"Resumo - Informativo 1.140 do STF, de 18 de junho de 2024 - Meu site jur\u00eddico","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uPA0NRelT5\"><a href=\"https:\/\/meusitejuridico.editorajuspodivm.com.br\/2024\/07\/03\/resumo-informativo-1-140-do-stf-de-18-de-junho-de-2024\/\">Resumo &#8211; Informativo 1.140 do STF, de 18 de junho de 2024<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/meusitejuridico.editorajuspodivm.com.br\/2024\/07\/03\/resumo-informativo-1-140-do-stf-de-18-de-junho-de-2024\/embed\/#?secret=uPA0NRelT5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Resumo &#8211; Informativo 1.140 do STF, de 18 de junho de 2024&#8221; &#8212; Meu site jur\u00eddico\" data-secret=\"uPA0NRelT5\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/cdn.meusitejuridico.com.br\/s.meusitejuridico\/2017\/10\/de9883a1-shutterstock-299295092.jpg","thumbnail_width":1000,"thumbnail_height":667,"description":"PLEN\u00c1RIO &#8211; 1. Existe omiss\u00e3o inconstitucional relativamente \u00e0 edi\u00e7\u00e3o de lei regulamentadora da especial prote\u00e7\u00e3o do bioma Pantanal Mato-Grossense, prevista no art. 225, \u00a7 4\u00ba, in fine, da Constitui\u00e7\u00e3o. 2. Fica estabelecido o prazo de 18 (dezoito) meses para o Congresso Nacional sanar a omiss\u00e3o apontada, contados da publica\u00e7\u00e3o da ata de julgamento. 3. Revela-se [&hellip;]"}