JurídicoESEN
Order (Auto)December 5, 2001

A- de 2001

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

Reporting justice Alvaro Tafur Galvis

✓Claimant Felipe Rincon Salgado

✓
Topic · hard data
Recurso De Suplica Contra Auto Que Rechazo La Demanda
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
  • Deber mínimo de diligencia por el ciudadano
Rechazo Demanda De Inconstitucionalidad
  • Razones por las cuales textos superiores son desconocidos por normas impugnadas
  • Factores
3 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se confirmó el auto suplicado del 23 de octubre de 2001 por el cual se rechazó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por el ciudadano de la referencia contra el Art. 25 del Decreto Ley 603 de 1977, toda vez que la demanda no cumplió con el requisitos de que trata el numeral 3 del Art. 2º del Decreto 2067 de 1991.

Contra la presente providencia, no procede recurso alguno.

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. R E S U E L V E:
  2. Primero. CONFIRMAR el auto suplicado del 23 de octubre de 2001, por el cual se rechazo la demanda de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por el ciudadano Felipe Rincon Salgado contra el articulo 25 del Decreto Ley 603 de 1977.
  3. Segundo. Contra la presente 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

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