JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)March 2, 2011

A- de 2011

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

Reporting justice Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto

✓Claimant Sigifredo Ospina Florez Vs Hospital Suba·Respondent 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.

Nulidad Contra Sentencias Proferidas Por Salas De Revision
  • Requisitos de procedencia
  • Reiteración de jurisprudencia
Accion De Tutela Contra Hospital Ii Nivel Ese Y Empresa Temporal De Servicios Y Asesorias
  • Denegar solicitud de nulidad de sentencia T-281/10 por falta de carga argumentativa
Sentencia De La Corte Constitucional
  • Inconformismo no constituye fundamento suficiente para solicitar su nulidad
3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Solicitud de nulidad de la sentencia de la referencia.

La Sala realiza reiteración de jurisprudencia sobre la nulidad de las sentencias proferidas por esta Corporación, se estudia si en el presente caso se cumplen los presupuestos para acreditarse la procedencia de la solicitud de nulidad, se concluye que la no cumple con la carga argumentativa exigida por esta Corporación, por lo tanto se resuelve denegar la solicitud.

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. DENEGAR la nulidad de la sentencia T-281 de 2010 proferida por la Sala Octava de Revisión.
  2. Segundo. Contra esta providencia no procede recurso alguno.
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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.