JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)June 15, 1994

T-276 de 1994

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

Reporting justice Carlos Gaviria Díaz

✓Claimant Maria Del Carmen Romero Y Otras

✓
Topic · hard data
Der. A La Educacion. Traslado De Alumnos Y Docentes A Otros Centros. Centro La Gran Colombia. 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.

Acción De Tutela
  • Inexistencia de vulneración al derecho
Recursos Municipales
  • Distribución y asignación
4 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 (5 points)
  1. PRIMERO. Confirmar la sentencia del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo del Valle del Cauca, Seccion Segunda, adoptada el veintiuno (21) de enero de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro (1994), que denego la solicitud de tutela formulada por las senoras Maria del Carmen Romero, Luz Dary Guapacha Taborda, Eucaris Villa Marulanda y Ana Bolena Perez contra el Municipio de Tulua (Valle del Cauca), por las razones expuestas en la parte motiva de esta providencia.
  2. SEGUNDO. Remitir copia de esta providencia al Consejo Superior de la Judicatura para que proceda con lo de su competencia, en relacion a la actuacion del Juzgado
  3. Cuarto. Penal Municipal de Tulua (Valle del Cauca) en el tramite de esta accion de tutela.
  4. TERCERO. Comunicar la presente providencia al Honorable Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo del Valle del Cauca, para los efectos contemplados en el articulo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
  5. Comuniquese,
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.