JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)April 2, 2002

A- de 2002

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

Reporting justice Luis Eduardo Montealegre Lynett

✓Claimant Saulo Arboleda Gomez

✓
Topic · hard data
Impedimento Y Nulidad Sentencia Su.159/02
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.

Sujeto Procesal
  • Obligación de presentar oportunamente las consideraciones necesarias para solución de controversias jurídicas
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se rechazó por improcedente la petición del demandante, quien interpuso acción de tutela en contra de la Sala Penal de la Corte Suprema de Justicia.

El demandante consideró que dicha corporación había incurrido en vía de hecho judicial por un manifiesto error de hecho.

Sin embargo, esta Corporación explicó que los sujetos procesales tienen un deber de lealtad con la administración de justicia y por ende están en la obligación de presentar oportunamente las consideraciones que sean de interés para la solución de las controversias jurídicas.

Por ende, si desde hacía tres años el accionante conocía las circunstancias que comunicó a la Sala, tenía el deber de presentarlas oportunamente a la Corte y no cuando se produjo el fallo adverso a sus pretensiones.

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.

  1. RESUELVE
  2. Rechazar, por improcedente, la petición del demandante.
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.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

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