JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)May 6, 1998

A- de 1998

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

Reporting justice Antonio Barrera Carbonell

✓Claimant Nelson Ivan Zamudio Arenas

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad.
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
  • No es función de la Corte prevenir errores de interpretación de la norma
  • Rechazo por cosa juzgada absoluta
1 topic · 2 subtopics · 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 el Art. 175 de la Ley 200 de 1995.

Toda vez que la Corte consideró que para este caso opera el fenómeno de la cosa juzgada absoluta, así mismo, explicó que no es función de la Corte, como lo pretende el demandante prevenir posibles errores de interpretación de la norma, ni mucho menos fijar el alcance de disposiciones dispersas que configuran unidad normativa, porque ello corresponde a las autoridades competentes para aplicarlas y, de otra parte, escapa a las competencias que en materia de control constitucional le han sido asignadas.

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. RESUELVE:
  2. CONFIRMAR el auto proferido por el Magistrado Vladimiro Naranjo Mesa el 2 de abril de 1998, por medio del cual se rechazo la demanda instaurada por el ciudadano Nelson Ivan Zamudio Arenas contra el articulo 175 de la Ley 200 de 1995.
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.