JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)May 22, 1992

T-009 de 1992

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

Reporting justice Alejandro Martínez Caballero

✓Claimant Gonzalez Quiroz Maryleidis·Respondent Accion Social

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Educacion. Principio De Igualdad De Oportunidades. Colegio El Carmelo. Negada
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.

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 (4 points)
  1. Primero. CONFIRMAR la providencia proferida por el Tribunal Superior de Santafe de Bogota, en Sala Especial, de fecha diciembre 10 de 1991, mediante la cual declaro improcedente la accion de tutela, presentada por la Srta. LAURA LYLANDA JORDAN MIRANDA contra el Colegio El Carmelo de Santafe de Bogota, por las razones expuestas en esta sentencia.
  2. Segundo. CONFIRMAR la providencia proferida por el Tribunal Superior de Santafe de Bogota, en Sala de Familia, de fecha enero 13 de 1992, mediante la cual denego la solicitud de tutela formulada por la Srta. LUISA FERNANDA RAMIREZ SANCHEZ contra el Colegio El Carmelo de Santafe de Bogota, por las razones expuestas en esta sentencia.
  3. Tercero. CONFIRMAR la providencia proferida por el Tribunal Superior de Santafe de Bogota, en Sala Civil de decision de fecha diciembre 19 de 1991, mediante la cual denego la solicitud de tutela formulada por la Srta. RUTH CRISTINA BARRERA DUVAN contra el Colegio El Carmelo de Santafe de Bogota, por las razones expuestas en esta sentencia.
  4. Cuarto.
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.