JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)August 3, 2022

A- de 2022

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

Reporting justice Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo

✓Claimant Ross Glenen Alexander·Respondent --

✓
Topic · hard data
Sin Información
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.

Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechaza Demanda
  • Demandante debe efectuar razonamiento mínimo para constatar yerro o arbitrariedad
Solicitud De Nulidad Sentencia De Constitucionalidad
  • Rechazar por falta de carga argumentativa
Recurso De Suplica Contra Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Requisitos de procedencia
  • Incumplimiento de la carga argumentativa
3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Recurso de súplica.

La demanda se rechazó porque el término de ejecutoria del auto inadmisorio se cumplió sin que el demandante allegara escrito de corrección alguno.

Luego de concluir que el recurso interpuesto no satisfizo el requisito de carga argumentativa, la Sala Plena de la Corporación decidió RECHAZARLO.

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 (24 points)
  1. Primero. RECHAZAR el recurso de súplica interpuesto por Glenen Alexander Ross en contra del auto del 29 de junio de 2022, mediante el cual se rechazó la demanda de la referencia.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.
  3. Tercero. Ejecutoriada esta decisión, archívese el expediente.
  4. Notifíquese y cúmplase,
  5. CRISTINA PARDO SCHLESINGER
  6. Presidenta
  7. NATALIA ÁNGEL CABO
  8. Magistrada
  9. DIANA FAJARDO RIVERA
  10. Magistrada
  11. JORGE ENRIQUE IBÁÑEZ NAJAR
  12. Magistrado
  13. ALEJANDRO LINARES CANTILLO
  14. Magistrado
  15. No participa
  16. ANTONIO JOSÉ LIZARAZO OCAMPO
  17. Magistrado
  18. PAOLA ANDREA MENESES MOSQUERA
  19. Magistrada
  20. HERNAN CORREA CARDOZO
  21. Magistrado (E)
  22. JOSÉ FERNANDO REYES CUARTAS
  23. Magistrado
  24. MARTHA VICTORIA SÁCHICA MÉNDEZ
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.

Appears in the rulingN1 · hard data
✓
Antonio José Lizarazo Ocampo
Reporting justice
✓
Alejandro Linares Cantillo
Magistrado
✓
Cristina Pardo Schlesinger
Presidente
✓
Diana Constanza Fajardo Rivera
Magistrado
✓
Hernán Leandro Correa Cardozo
Magistrado
✓
Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar
Magistrado
✓
José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Magistrado
✓
Natalia Ángel Cabo
Magistrado
✓
Paola Andrea Meneses Mosquera
Magistrado
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.