The presented review of the case law in civil matters goes back to the original assumption, according to which the review includes short discussions of the latest judgments of the Supreme Court and in-depth commentaries on selected judgments. It became possible because the rulings of the Supreme Court are again available (their publication is mandatory pursuant to Article 8 of the Act of 8.12.2017 on the Supreme Court (Polish Journal of Laws of 2021, item 611, as amended). Therefore, the review includes eight shorter commentaries on the latest judgments of the Supreme Court and three in-depth commentaries on rulings of the Supreme Court regarding the right to bury the body of a deceased person, the right of the owner of the dominant estate to demand a modification of easement and the rights of the contracting authority in the event of a defect in the work. The legal problem to be resolved by the Supreme Court in the judgment of 19.11.2020 (II CSK 30/19) concerned establishing the criteria for resolving disputes regarding the place and manner of burial of the body of a deceased person. In the discussed judgment, the Supreme Court adopted the principle according to which the place of burial is first decided by the relative who acts in accordance with the verified will of the deceased. The Court also stated that the measure for the protection of personal interests in the form of exhumation in order to transfer the body to another place may be used only in exceptional situations where it is justified by extraordinary circumstances of a given case. In the ruling of the Supreme Court of 9.09.2020 (II CSK 69/1), the Supreme Court stated that the owner of the dominant estate has the right to demand a modification of right-of-way easement. The Court indicated Article 145 (not Article 291) of the Civil Code as the source of this right. The ruling issued by the Supreme Court on 29.01.2021 (V CSKP 10/21) concerns important issues related to the performance of a contract for specific work and the legal consequences of acceptance of the work by the parties. In the commented ruling, the Supreme Court presented extensive arguments on defects of the work and the consequences of their existence in the context of non-performance or improper performance of the contract.