JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)November 8, 2006

A- de 2006

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

Reporting justice Clara Inés Vargas Hernández

✓Claimant Ilva Myriam Hoyos Castañeda

✓
Topic · hard data
Tramite De Incidentes De Nulidad De La Sentencia C-355 De 2006. Solicitud De Nulidad Contra El Auto Del 1º De Noviembre De 2006 Presenatda Por El Magistrado Doctor Jaime Araujo Renteria. Negar La Solicitud De Nulidad
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 De Auto Que Declaro Pertinente Recusacion
  • Negada porque magistrados que adoptaron decisión no se encontraban impedidos para participar en la misma
3 topics · 3 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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 (24 points)
  1. Negar la solicitud de nulidad presentada por el Magistrado Jaime Araújo Rentaría contra el Auto de fecha
  2. primero. de noviembre de dos mil seis.
  3. Notifíquese,
  4. JAIME CÓRDOBA TRIVIÑO
  5. Presidente
  6. IMPEDIMENTO ACEPTADO
  7. JAIME ARAÚJO RENTERÍA
  8. Magistrado
  9. AUSENTE EN COMISION
  10. NILSON PINILLA PINILLA
  11. Magistrado
  12. MANUEL JOSÉ CEPEDA ESPINOSA
  13. Magistrado
  14. RODRIGO ESCOBAR GIL
  15. Magistrado
  16. MARCO GERARDO MONROY CABRA
  17. Magistrado
  18. HUMBERTO ANTONIO SIERRA PORTO
  19. Magistrado
  20. ÁLVARO TAFUR GALVIS
  21. Magistrado
  22. CLARA INÉS VARGAS HERNÁNDEZ
  23. Magistrada
  24. MARTHA VICTORIA SÁCHICA MÉNDEZ
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.