JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 14, 2013

A- de 2013

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

Reporting justice Jorge Iván Palacio Palacio

✓Claimant Jesus Evelio Quiroga Ardila Vs Crevron Pertroleum Company

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.

Accion De Tutela Contra Chevron Petroleum Company
  • Corregir referencia del auto A139/13 por error de transcripción
Fallo De Tutela
  • Aplicación del artículo 310 del CPC por errores en la transcripción corregidos en cualquier tiempo
2 topics · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Con el presente auto se corrige el error de transcripción en que se incurrió en el auto número 139 de 2013, relacionado con el primer apellido del accionante, el cual quedó registrado como Quintero en lugar de Quiroga.

Se decide hacer la respectiva corrección y, en consecuencia, la referencia del precitado auto debe leerse como: “ Acción de tutela presentada por Jesús Evelio Quiroga Ardila contra Chevron Petroleum Company”

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. Corregir la referencia del auto núm. 139 del 10 de julio de 2013, la cual quedará así: "Acción de tutela presentada por Jesús Evelio Quiroga Ardila contra Chevron Petroleum Company".
  2. Segundo. Remitir a los Juzgados Cincuenta y Cuatro Civil Municipal y Veintiocho Civil del Circuito, ambos de Bogotá, con el fin de que se realicen las anotaciones a que haya lugar.
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.