JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 29, 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
Sentencia De Tutela. Medidas Provisionales Para Proteger Un Derecho
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 · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se declaró que la Sala Civil de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en su calidad de superior jerárquico común, es competente para decidir sobre el conflicto de competencia negativo, surgido entre dos Juzgados Civiles del Circuito.

En consecuencia, se ordenó enviar el expediente a la mencionada Sala para que dirima el conflicto suscitado.

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. Primero. DECLARAR que la Sala Civil de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en su calidad de superior jerárquico común, es competente para decidir sobre el conflicto de competencia negativo, surgido entre el Juzgado Civil del Circuito de Zipaquirá, y el Juzgado Civil del Circuito de Santa Fe de Bogotá.
  2. Segundo. ORDENAR el envío del expediente a la H. Corte Suprema de Justicia -Sala Civil-, para que defina el conflicto de competencia entre los Juzgados Civil del Circuito de Zipaquirá y
  3. Primero. Civil del Circuito de Santa Fe de Bogotá.
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.