Theses and Case Law/ Litigation / byDaniel Majewski del Castillo.
On #ThesisFriday | On August 14, 2026, the Semanario Judicial published 31 new rulings: 5 case law decisions and 26 isolated legal opinions.
We’ve selected the most relevant ones for you, which were issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, the Collegiate Circuit Courts, and the Regional Circuit Plenary Sessions:
Abstracts
Digital Record: 2032481 / Thesis: III.2o.C.26 K (11a.)
An indirect appeal challenging the appellate court’s decision—which upholds the decision to allow the proceedings and denies the order requiring the opposing party to pay expenses and costs—is inadmissible.
This is because the appellate ruling constitutes an infringement of a formal or procedural nature and is not irreparable, since it does not prevent the exercise of a substantive right nor does it necessarily affect the outcome of the judgment. Furthermore, since this decision initiates the preliminary investigation phase, its nature is purely procedural, as it merely binds the parties to the proceedings; therefore, the decision not to order the payment of expenses and costs—being an ancillary issue to the main claim—must follow the same procedural fate as the contested decision.
Digital Registration: 2032483 / Thesis: VI.1o.P.2 K (12th)
The deadline for expanding the petition for amparo begins when the petitioner has reliable, complete, and substantive knowledge of the evidence supporting the contested act.
The general rule is that the deadline for expanding the complaint begins on the day following the date on which notification of the decision acknowledging receipt of the substantiated report takes effect; when that report does not fully reveal the grounds and rationale for the act being challenged because it depends on evidence or audiovisual records submitted at a later date, the calculation begins only once the complainant has reliable, complete, and substantive knowledge of those elements, since otherwise it would imply requiring the complainant to allege violations without having actual access to the reasons underlying the administrative act.
Digital Registration Number: 2032489 / Thesis: I.11o.A.2 K (12a.)
In the face of diseases that, in and of themselves, can cause life-threatening deterioration, the duty to protect and guarantee the human right to health takes on even greater significance.
When, in an amparo proceeding, the progression of a chronic degenerative disease is observed that justifies a radical change in treatment—such as the need for an organ transplant—the Circuit Collegiate Court must conduct a comprehensive analysis of the petitioner’s clinical condition to determine whether the effects of constitutional protection provide enhanced guarantees for that human right or whether they must be modified to ensure its effectiveness.
Digital registration number: 2032490 / Thesis: I.16o.C.12 C (12a.)
The presumption of damages arising from a stay in an amparo proceeding is not satisfied when the sole effect of such a measure is to prevent the lifting of preliminary injunctions regarding collection rights.
When the stay merely maintains in effect preliminary injunctions regarding collection rights that do not in and of themselves constitute a liquidated and enforceable obligation, the granting of the stay cannot be deemed to give rise to a serious and effective presumption of damages. In such cases, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff in the interlocutory proceeding to prove: 1) the nature of the damages; 2) how they arose; 3) the date on which they occurred; 4) their amount; 5) the causal link to the stay; and 6) why they do not stem from other causes.
Digital Registration Number: 2032492 / Thesis: I.1o.A.14 A (11a.)
The action for annulment filed with the Federal Administrative Court against a fine imposed by a Labor Conciliation and Registration Center is inadmissible.
When a Labor Conciliation and Registration Center imposes a financial penalty on an individual in her capacity as an employer for failing to appear at a conciliation hearing in the context of conciliation proceedings, it does so pursuant to the aforementioned Article 684-E, Section IV. In other words, the conciliation proceeding in which the fine is imposed is of a labor nature because it is based on labor law, even though it is substantively conducted before an administrative authority.
Digital registration number: 2032495 / Thesis: I.16o.C.1 K (12a.)
The principle of non reformatio in peius is not violated when the harsher sentence results from the Collegiate Court reassuming jurisdiction to review omitted grounds for appeal.
If a ground for appeal is found to be valid—on the basis of which the argument set forth in the judgment granting the amparo was refuted and the other alleged violations were not analyzed—the court is obligated to analyze them, bearing in mind that the modification of the decision granting the amparo may prove more detrimental to the interested third-party appellant.
Digital Registration Number: 2032498 / Thesis: VI.3o.A.56 A (12a.)
The deadline for submitting an expert opinion in a federal administrative litigation proceeding begins on the day following the date on which the notice of the summons takes effect for the party requesting the expert opinion, and not from the date of acceptance of the appointment.
The time limit granted for rendering the expert opinion should be understood as the period within which the party making the offer must take the necessary steps to fulfill that obligation. Furthermore, during that period, the party may request the replacement of the expert or an extension of the time limit for just cause. In order for this procedural obligation to be effectively fulfilled, the calculation of the time limit must begin on the day following the date on which the notice of the order—warning the party filing the motion of the consequences of failing to submit the expert opinion in a timely manner—takes effect, since it is only from that moment onward that the party has formal knowledge of the obligation it must satisfy and the legal consequences of noncompliance.
Digital Registration Number: 2032502 / Thesis: I.1o.A.8 A (11a.)
To determine whether the State’s financial liability arises from its irregular administrative activity, it must be established whether the damages claimed are of a contractual or non-contractual nature.
The State’s financial liability provided for in Article 1 of the Federal Law on State Financial Liability is objective, direct, and non-contractual in nature; therefore, it does not cover damages arising exclusively from a breach of contract. The mere existence of a contractual relationship with a public entity does not exclude such liability, as the origin of the damage must be considered: if it arises solely from a breach of contract, the liability will be contractual and must generally be pursued through civil proceedings; but if it stems from a failure to comply with constitutional or legal duties unrelated to the content of the contract, it will be non-contractual and may be pursued through the State’s financial liability regime.
Post prepared byDaniel Majewski del Castillo.
