Theses and Case Law/ Litigation / by , Daniel Majewski del Castillo, Karla Mishelli Tapia Santos, and Zusel Soto Vilchis.
On #ThesisFriday | On July 11, 2025, the Judicial Weekly published 34 new rulings: 10 precedents and 24 isolated rulings.
We have selected the most relevant ones for you, which were issued by the Chambers of the SCJN, Collegiate Courts, and Regional Plenary Sessions:
Abstracts
Digital registration number: 2030760 / Thesis: 2nd/J. 25/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
An appeal for review may be filed against a judgment of nullity that reviews a decision issued in an appeal for revocation arising from the imposition of a non-serious administrative offense.
In cases of serious misconduct, the administrative investigative authorities compile the case file and forward it to the Specialized Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, which, in the first instance, determines whether misconduct has occurred and issues a ruling against which an appeal may be filed pursuant to Article 215 of the aforementioned general law. In this case, since it involves a serious offense, the decision on the appeal may be challenged through a petition for review.
Digital record: 2030766 / Thesis: VII.2o.C.73 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
If a stay is granted against the disconnection of electricity service for the purpose of restoring service, the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) is considered an interested third party.
When the CFE cuts off the electricity supply, it qualifies as an interested third party as referred to in the aforementioned Article 132, even though it is the responsible authority, It is concluded that in cases where the suspension may cause harm or damage to interested third parties, responsible authorities—formal parties to the amparo proceeding—or third parties—unrelated to the constitutional dispute—the guarantee is a requirement that conditions the effectiveness of the suspensive effects on the prior assurance against such potential harm and/or damage.
Digital registration number: 2030735 / Thesis: I.11o.C.1 CS (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The provision set forth in Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Insurance Contract Act, regarding the calculation of the time limit for bringing an action to enforce the relevant contract, is constitutional.
It is constitutionally valid for Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Insurance Contract Act to provide that, in order for the statute of limitations to begin running, third-party beneficiaries must be aware of the right established in their favor. Furthermore, there is no indication that this provision violates the rights to equality and due process, as it merely imposes on the beneficiary the burden of proving that they were unaware of that fact when the insurer disputes the date.
Digital registration number: 2030756 / Thesis: I.20o.A.88 A (11a)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The protection of signs containing commonly used terms or expressions must be based on their specific and distinctive combination, and not merely on their phonetic, graphic, or conceptual similarity.
Article 173, Section XVIII, of the Federal Law on the Protection of Industrial Property provides that a sign shall not be registrable if it is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark that is pending registration or has been previously registered for similar goods or services. However, this prohibition should not result in the granting of a monopoly over generic or commonly used expressions, but rather in a comprehensive analysis that assesses the peaceful coexistence of trademarks with similar elements, provided that their differences are sufficient to avoid confusion among consumers.
Digital registration number: 2030762 / Thesis: IV.1o.C.18 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
In cases of strict liability, an insurance policy that excludes the insured’s employees is not void, provided that the exclusion is reasonable and objective (Sections 145 and 147 of the Insurance Contract Act).
A distinction constitutes a reasonable and objective difference, whereas discrimination is an arbitrary difference that infringes upon human rights. Furthermore, regulatory discrimination occurs when two equivalent factual situations are treated unequally, without any reasonable justification for such differential treatment. Thus, this case does not involve two equivalent factual situations, since, given that the payment of damages is intended for “third parties,” it is clear that the employee, spouse, and/or relative are excluded from that category.
Digital registration number: 2030768 / Thesis: IV.1o.C.16 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
In a public will, the notary’s verification of the testator’s identity is a requirement for its validity.
A literal interpretation of Articles 1401 and 1402 of the aforementioned code reveals that, with regard to the testator’s identity, the notary must take two steps: 1) Know the testator personally or verify his or her identity in some other way; and 2) If the identity cannot be verified, the notary must state this fact, providing a detailed description of the testator’s physical characteristics.
Digital registration number: 2030748 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CS. J/26 K (11th)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
When the Chambers of the Superior Court of Justice of the State of Morelos rule that a plea of lack of jurisdiction is well-founded, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned articles, they may transfer jurisdiction to a court of a different jurisdiction.
There is no legal impediment preventing the aforementioned Chambers, when analyzing the objection of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction raised by one of the parties in the original proceedings, from determining—if the objection is well-founded—that jurisdiction to hear the matter lies with a body other than those under their jurisdiction; since jurisdiction is a guarantee of legality linked to the right of access to justice; and, in this regard, the State’s duty toward those who bring a lawsuit entails taking the necessary measures to remove obstacles that prevent litigants from effectively accessing a competent authority to hear their case.
Digital registration number: 2030754 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CN. J/87 A (11th)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
In the case of a decision on a public tender, it is not required to exhaust the appeal process provided for in the relevant legislation before filing a federal administrative lawsuit.
The Law on Public Works and Related Services does not provide that no other legal remedy may be sought until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, nor that such a process must be exhausted prior to initiating judicial proceedings. Nor does the legislative history indicate any intention to establish a duty to exhaust that process. Therefore, since the award of a public tender is the final expression of the authority’s will, it constitutes a final decision for the purposes of federal administrative litigation; and since filing an appeal is optional, the scenario set forth in Article 3, Section VIII, of the Organic Law of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice applies, and the action for annulment may be brought directly.
This publication was prepared by ,Daniel Majewski del Castillo, Karla Mishelli Tapia Santos, and Zusel Soto Vilchis.
