JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)October 10, 2001

A- de 2001

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

Reporting justice Alvaro Tafur Galvis

✓Claimant Claudia Helena Soto Escobar

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechazo La Demanda
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.

Cosa Juzgada Aparente
  • No análisis íntegro de norma impugnada
  • Alcance
  • Falta de motivación
Cosa Juzgada Relativa
  • Alcance
  • No señalamiento preciso en parte resolutiva
5 topics · 8 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se revocó el Art. 1 del auto proferido el 27 de agosto de 2001, por el magistrado ponente del proceso D-3678, y, en su lugar, admitir la demanda contra la expresión “las mismas” contenida en el Art. 148 (parcial) de la Ley 446 de 1998, modificado por el Art. 52 de la Ley 510 de 1999, en los términos propuestos por la demandante.

Notificar esta decisión a la demandante, haciéndole saber que contra ella no procede recurso alguno.

Se devolvió el expediente al despacho del magistrado correspondiente para que continuara el trámite.

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 (26 points)
  1. R E S U E L V E:
  2. Primero. Revocar el articulo
  3. primero. del auto proferido el 27 de agosto de 2001, por el magistrado ponente del proceso D-3678.
  4. Segundo. Admitir la demanda presentada por la ciudadana Claudia Helena Soto Escobar, contra la expresion "ante las mismas" contenida en el articulo 148 (parcial) de la Ley 446 de 1998, modificado por el articulo 52 de la Ley 510 de 1999.
  5. Tercero. Notificar esta decision a la demandante, haciendole saber que contra ella no procede recurso alguno.
  6. Cuarto. Devolver el expediente al despacho del magistrado correspondiente, para que continue su tramite.
  7. Quinto. Por Secretaria General anexese al expediente copia de este auto.
  8. ALFREDO BELTRAN SIERRA
  9. Presidente
  10. JAIME ARAUJO RENTERIA
  11. Magistrado
  12. MANUEL JOSE CEPEDA ESPINOSA
  13. Magistrado
  14. JAIME CORDOBA TRIVINO
  15. Magistrado
  16. RODRIGO ESCOBAR GIL
  17. Magistrado
  18. MARCO GERARDO MONROY CABRA
  19. Magistrado
  20. EDUARDO MONTEALEGRE LYNETT
  21. Magistrado
  22. ALVARO TAFUR GALVIS
  23. Magistrado
  24. CLARA INES VARGAS HERNANDEZ
  25. Magistrada
  26. MARTHA VICTORIA SACHICA MENDEZ
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.

Separate opinions — text available1
DissentJosé Gregorio Hernández Galindo
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
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.