JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 30, 1997

A- de 1997

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

Reporting justice Antonio Barrera Carbonell

✓Claimant Rafael Soto Beltran

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto. Cosa Juzgada.
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.

Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Rechazo por cosa juzgada
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se confirmó el auto proferido por el Magistrado Sustanciador, por medio del cual se rechazó la demanda instaurada por el accionante de la referencia contra la expresión “legítimos” contenida en el numeral 9° del Art. 411 del Código Civil.

Lo anterior, porque cuando la Corte no limita los efectos de su decisión, se entiende que en la confrontación de la norma acusada se ha hecho con referencia a todos los preceptos de la Constitución y por lo tanto, opera el fenómeno de la cosa juzgada absoluta.

Se ordenó archivar el expediente.

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. CONFIRMAR el auto proferido por el Magistrado Jorge Arango Mejia el 10 de octubre de 1997, por medio del cual se rechazo la demanda instaurada por el ciudadano RAFAEL SOTO BELTRAN contra la expresion "legitimos" contenida en el numeral 9deg del articulo 411 del Codigo Civil.
  2. Segundo. ORDENAR el archivo del expediente.
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.