JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 11, 1994

A- de 1994

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

Reporting justice Alejandro Martínez Caballero

✓Claimant Habitantes Llanos De Cuiva

✓
Topic · hard data
Nulidad Procesal. Improcedencia De Acumulacion De Procesos. Pluralidad De Solicitantes. Usurpacion De Competencia.
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.

6 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Declaró la nulidad de todo lo actuado y ordenó devolver el expediente al Juzgado Civil del Circuito correspondiente para que conceda legalmente la impugnación, toda vez que la nulidad no puede ir hasta la presentación de la solicitud, así ésta hubiera sido firmada por casi 200 personas, pero sólo presentada por una de ellas, por cuanto este proceder no es causal de nulidad y se ajusta a providencias de la Corte Constitucional.

La solicitud de tutela hecha por varias personas, responde generalmente a la protección de un interés colectivo.

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. Declarase la nulidad de todo lo actuado a partir del auto de 22 de febrero de 1994, proferido por el Juzgado Civil Municipal de Yarumal, por las razones indicadas en este auto.
  2. SEGUNDO. Devuelvase el expediente al Juzgado Civil Municipal de Yarumal para que conceda legalmente la impugnacion remitiendo el proceso al Juzgado Civil del Circuito correspondiente.
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.