JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 20, 1995

A- de 1995

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Alejandro Martínez Caballero

✓Claimant Gutierrez Galeano Arturo·Respondent Hospital San Vicente De Paul Y Otro

✓
Topic · hard data
Nulidad Por Falta De Notificacion.
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

1 topic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se declaró la nulidad de todo lo actuado con posterioridad al auto proferido por el Magistrado Sustanciador del tribunal correspondiente dentro del proceso de la referencia, toda vez que se presentó una violación al debido proceso porque el juez omitió notificar a una de las partes contra las cuales se interpuso la acción de tutela.

La Corte exhortó devolver el expediente para subsanar el vicio que se generó y tramitarla en debida forma.

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

See the operative part (3 points)
  1. PRIMERO. DECLARAR la nulidad de todo lo actuado con posterioridad al auto de febrero 16 de 1995, proferido por el Magistrado Sustanciador de la Sala Civil del Tribunal Superior de Antioquia dentro del proceso de la referencia.
  2. SEGUNDO. ORDENAR que por intermedio de la Secretaria General de esta Corporacion se devuelva INMEDIATAMENTE el expediente radicado bajo el numero T-65087.
  3. TERCERO. Una vez subsanado el vicio que genero la presente nulidad y tramitada en debida forma la accion, DEVUELVASE EL EXPEDIENTE a traves de la Secretaria General de la Corte, a esta Sala de Revision de tutelas, para el estudio y decision correspondiente.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.
Cited by0
No decision cites it yet.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.