JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)October 15, 2008

T-1004 de 2008

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

Reporting justice Nilson Elías Pinilla Pinilla

✓Claimant María Idali Quintero Henrández En Representación De Su Hijo Maicol Stick Zárate Quintero·Respondent Institución Educativa Departamental Manuel Murillo Toro De Útica

✓
Topic · hard data
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.

Hecho Superado En Tutela
  • Carencia actual de objeto
1 topic · 1 subtopic · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Derecho a la educación de menor al que la accionada le canceló la matrícula académica, cuya madre solicita su reintegro en vista de que ésta es la única institución educativa existente en el municipio y ella carece de recursos para inscribirlo en una por fuera del mismo. <br>existencia de un hecho superado por el reintegro del alumno al establecimiento educativo. <br>hecho superado

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. REVOCAR el fallo proferido en abril 17 de 2008 por la Sala Penal del Tribunal Superior de Cundinamarca, que a su turno habia revocado el dictado en febrero 28 de 2008 por el Juzgado Penal del Circuito de Villeta.
  2. Segundo. DECLARAR la carencia actual de objeto, por hecho superado.
  3. Tercero. Por Secretaria General, LIBRESE la comunicacion a que se refiere el articulo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
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.