Review of the precautionary measures of the Army Captain for
By letter of the procedural representative of the executing community registered on November 28, 2012, it was stated to the court that the works project had already been submitted together with three copies, and therefore, it was requested that said procedure be deemed to have been completed.
d) All the defendants filed writs opposing the execution, as stated in the separate piece, alleging in summary that the works could not be carried out due to the lack of collaboration of the executing community.
“1. The executed parties are required to comply with the obligation set forth in the operative part of the order dated November 19, 2012, within ten months from the notification of this resolution.
“What the executing party intends is not, for example, to promote an incidental proceeding of prior pronouncement but what is requested is raised as continuity, development and as a consequence of the executive measures adopted and of the main execution process itself, when the admission of questions of this type in the proceeding for whose normal continuation does not suppose any obstacle whatsoever.
Trial against accused for his responsibility in the death of
The sentence that convicted the defendant for the crime of simple homicide is confirmed, as it was proven that when the victim was provoked to get out of the car and confront him face to face, due to a dispute they had over a woman, the defendant shot him three times in the central area of his body, one after the other, with a firearm without a license to carry. Therefore, the lack of rational necessity of the means used was proven.
On the other hand, on March 12, 2019, Chamber III of the Court of Appeals and Guarantees of the San Isidro Judicial Department rejected the appeal filed by the defense and confirmed the decision of the intervening Criminal Court that had rejected to apply to G. R. B. a measure to mitigate the preventive detention (fs. 1/10vta., c. 96639).
The files were submitted to the Chamber on 20/11/2018 and 23/5/2019, the hearing of reports of article 458 of the CPP was held on 7/5/19 (fs. 445/448), the appeals were joined on 4/6/2019 (fs. 478), and the case was ready for sentencing, and it was decided to raise and resolve the following issues:
Retroactive Alimony: The Court Has Said So
In Canada, the 2019 Canada v Vavilov precedent of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCC) is normally applied to admit judicial review of an administrative award when errors of law and/or fact are detected that render it respectively irrational and/or inaccurate. Arbitration awards are not reviewable in Canada, unless there is an agreement of the parties to admit a second instance or an error of law that renders the decision irrational. In addition, authorizing a review for a serious error of fact can be understood as opening a real second instance.
In 2019 the trial court found that the arbitration award was, on the contrary, factually accurate and legally reasonable. The appeal held that the arbitral award was inaccurate and unreasonable for not conforming to the Vavilov standard that should also apply to commercial arbitrations. In January 2021, the Court of Appeals defined that the Vavilov standard applies to the review of commercial arbitral awards because the appeal is not limited exclusively to questions of law, but is also available for any decision showing a palpable and obvious mistake of fact. As this was an agreed appeal and the appeal upheld the arbitral award the commentary on the standard of review applied did not generate a binding precedent.
Review of Colombia’s public finances
This text attempts to reconstruct the notion of judicial precedent in the light of recent legislation and case law on the subject. For this purpose, the general justification of precedent in the Colombian legal system, elaborated by the Constitutional Court since early times, was reviewed, and the binding force of the jurisprudence of other high Courts was reviewed. The working hypothesis is that any ruling issued by any of the high courts creates precedent and generates a greater argumentative burden for judicial and administrative officials who decide to deviate from them.
This article aims to explain the notion of judicial precedent from current legislation and recent jurisprudence about this topic. In order to achieve this objective, the research will review the general justification of precedent in the Colombian juridic system, elaborated by Constitutional Court from early times and then it will work on stare decisis of other high courts. The working hypothesis consists in the idea that every verdict of all high courts establishes precedent and produces a burden of argument for the court officials and administrative officers that decide to step aside from them.