Theses and Case Law/ Litigation / by Daniel Majewski del Castillo and Zusel Soto Vilchis.
On #ThesisFriday | April 24, 2026, the Judicial Weekly published 20 rulings: 4 precedents and 16 isolated theses.
We have selected the most relevant ones for you, which were issued by the Regional Circuit Plenary Sessions and the Circuit Collegiate Courts:
Abstracts
Digital registration number: 2032054 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CN. J/37 A (12th)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
When a decree is challenged on the grounds of violations of legislative procedure, the petition for amparo should not be dismissed outright as manifestly unfounded.
A judge may dismiss a lawsuit at the outset only when it is abundantly clear that it is without merit. However, in cases where a constitutional amendment is challenged on the grounds of errors in the legislative process, there is no rule allowing for its automatic dismissal. Although an amparo petition is inadmissible against constitutional amendments based on their content, this does not automatically apply when the manner in which they were approved is being challenged. In such cases, a more thorough analysis is required, so the case cannot be dismissed at the outset. Therefore, the complaint must be admitted so that the petitioner can present evidence.
Digital record: 2032053 / Thesis: (Region V) 4.8 C (12th)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
When service of process is not made on a relative or household member of the party concerned, the process server must verify that the person receiving the notice of service resides at that address (Legislation applicable to the State of San Luis Potosí).
Service of process is an essential procedural step designed to ensure that the defendant is fully aware of the lawsuit against them, in order to safeguard their right to a hearing as provided for in Article 14 of the Constitution. When the court clerk is unable to locate the defendant, they may leave the notice with a family member, a domestic worker, or any other person; however, in the latter case, they must verify that such person actually resides at the address. This requirement is fundamental because, unlike family members or domestic workers—with whom there is a presumption of communication—in the case of third parties, only the fact that they live at the address allows for a reasonable presumption that they will inform the defendant, thereby preventing the defendant from being left without a defense.
Digital registration number: 2032055 / Thesis: I.9o.A.1 A (12th)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The aforementioned decision constitutes a final decision for the purposes of determining the admissibility of the federal administrative lawsuit.
The initiation of proceedings regarding forced labor is at the discretion of the Ministry of Labor, which must first determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed. Although the law requires the Ministry to review the request, the final decision is discretionary; that is, the authority has the discretion to assess whether or not to initiate proceedings. Therefore, when the Ministry decides not to initiate proceedings, that decision is considered final. This is because, although in theory a new request can be filed, in practice the same requirements will be imposed and the request will be evaluated under the same criteria, so it does not represent a genuine opportunity to change the outcome.
Digital registration number: 2032059 / Thesis: I.14o.T.6 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The Circuit Court of Appeals, which is responsible for ruling on the appeal filed against the order suspending the contested action issued by the respondent, does not violate the human right of access to justice.
The right of access to justice is not violated by the fact that the Circuit Collegiate Court rules on the appeal challenging the suspension of the contested act issued by the responsible authority in a direct amparo proceeding. This leads to the conclusion that District Courts and Collegiate Circuit Courts are clearly distinct judicial bodies, as both are autonomous and independent in rendering their decisions.
Digital registration number: 2032063 / Thesis: VI.3o.A.2 K (12th)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
In exceptional cases, the Circuit Court of Appeals may evaluate and rule on new evidence presented in an appeal for review filed against an interlocutory judgment issued in a motion for stay that denies a permanent stay.
A Circuit Court of Appeals may consider new evidence when ruling on an appeal for review of a decision denying a permanent stay in an indirect amparo proceeding, provided that such evidence is submitted for the purpose of modifying or revoking the preliminary injunction. This is reinforced by the fact that there is no remand in an appeal for review; therefore, in this regard, the Court, exercising full jurisdiction, must rule on the preliminary injunction and, if appropriate, establish the corresponding guarantee.
Digital record: Thesis: VIII.3o.P.A.2 K (12th grade)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The National Code of Civil and Family Procedure cannot be applied on a supplementary basis, as it is no longer in force pursuant to the Decree dated June 7, 2023.
This is because the second transitional provision of the Decree of June 7, 2023, clearly establishes the date on which the aforementioned regulation would take effect; therefore, it is not valid to adopt a different interpretation that would allow for the conclusion that said Code may or must take effect at any other time, as this would entail an expansive interpretation that was not contemplated by the legislature at the time the aforementioned legal provision was enacted.
This publication was prepared by Daniel Majewski del Castillo and Zusel Soto Vilchis.
