Fourth v. Fifth Civil Panel of the Third Circuit
Mexico Supreme Court
Contradiction of Theses 141/2002-PS (2004)
- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
Two child-custody cases arose in the Third Circuit of Mexico. Each case involved petitions for interim custody orders, which were sought under the procedure for preliminary remedies set forth in Article 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of Jalisco. Article 249 empowered the court to grant preliminary relief to a petitioner without hearing from the opposing party to maintain the status quo pending resolution of the dispute. In each case, the lower court issued a preliminary custody order to one parent without hearing from the opposing parent. Each case was appealed and heard by different panels of judges within the Third Circuit. The Fourth Civil Panel (plaintiff) and the Fifth Civil Panel (defendant) issued inconsistent rulings. The Fifth Civil Panel determined that the right to be heard under Mexico’s constitution trumped the interim relief procedure of Article 249, and the panel required that the opposing parent and the minor be provided an opportunity to be heard prior to issuance of the temporary order. The Fourth Civil Panel reached the opposite result—that the opposing parent was not entitled to be heard prior to issuance of a preliminary custody order. The Mexico Supreme Court took up the issue to resolve the inconsistency in the rulings of the Civil Panels of the Third Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gudiño Pelayo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
