José Melgar Castillejos v. Pres. of the Republic

Writ of Protection on Appeal Amp. Rev. 579/99 (1999)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

José Melgar Castillejos v. Pres. of the Republic

Mexico Supreme Court
Writ of Protection on Appeal Amp. Rev. 579/99 (1999)

Facts

José Melgar Castillejos’s daughter initiated an action for the involuntary confinement of Melgar Castillejos as mentally incompetent. Before the trial on the merits, pursuant to a procedure set forth in Article 904 of Mexico’s Federal District Code of Civil Procedure, a court issued an interlocutory detainment order, assigned a guardian to Melgar Castillejos, and seized his assets. Although Mexican law provided that a trial on the merits could follow the initial detainment order, the initial procedure under Article 904 did not provide Melgar Castillejos any opportunity to present evidence of his competency before the interim detainment and seizure of his assets. A district judge subsequently issued a writ of protection against the procedure in Article 904 on the grounds that the procedure incorrectly presumed incapacity without sufficient evidentiary support and did not permit the person accused of incompetency to speak and defend himself. The district judge issued a writ of protection and ordered that the confinement order against Melgar Castillejos be withdrawn and that the entire procedure under Article 904 be invalidated as unconstitutional. Melgar Castillejos’s daughter appealed to the Mexico Supreme Court, but then, at Melgar Castillejos’s urging, withdrew the request for appeal. The Mexico Supreme Court still reviewed the case to examine the president of the republic’s arguments for validation of Article 904 as constitutional. [Ed.’s note: The pretrial procedure under Article 904 is outlined in detail in the casebook excerpt.]

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Azuela Güitrón, J.)

Dissent (Sánchez Cordero, Ortiz Mayagoitia, and Aguirre Anguiano, J.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership