Theses and Case Law/ Litigation / by Zusel Soto Vilchis and Daniel Majewski del Castillo.
In this #ThesisFriday | May 9, 2025, the Judicial Weekly published 70 new rulings: 32 case law decisions and 38 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: 2030327 / Thesis: 1st/J. 37/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
Family litigation proceedings are appropriate when a person seeks recognition of a final judgment regarding a child support agreement entered into before the DIF.
To determine whether family court proceedings are appropriate when a person seeks recognition of a final judgment regarding a maintenance agreement entered into before the DIF, the judge must proceed on the basis that such agreements are enforceable, which means that compliance may be demanded from the maintenance debtor without the need for prior judicial approval.
Digital registration: 2030345 / Thesis: 1st/J. 34/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
The State must guarantee the right of indigenous peoples and communities to free, prior, and informed consultation before taking any action that could affect the watershed from which they derive benefits.
This consultation must be conducted in a culturally appropriate, informed, and good-faith manner, through their representatives or traditional authorities, before state bodies take any legislative or administrative action or measure that could affect them. Therefore, before issuing any state act that may affect the watershed from which an indigenous community benefits—such as concessions for the industrial use or exploitation of water—their right to free, prior, and informed consultation must be guaranteed.
Digital registration: 2030361 / Thesis: 1st / J. 43/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
Private educational institutions that are part of a school network with a standardized educational model are required to comply with the minimum standards established by state agencies and international human rights treaties.
Although private educational institutions do not have the same obligations as the State, they are nonetheless obligated not to violate this right, which entails a cross-cutting duty to prioritize access to education in all their actions, in light of the best interests of the child and the principle of equality and non-discrimination. Therefore, they may not improperly select students, adopt policies that unilaterally and arbitrarily reserve the right of admission, or administer entrance exams in a selective manner.
Digital registration: 2030369 / Thesis: 1st/J. 40/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
The use of the Measurement and Adjustment Unit as a basis for calculating child support payments is unconstitutional.
Given that the obligation to provide child support encompasses everything essential for the sustenance, housing, clothing, medical care, and education of children, it is clear that this obligation is closely linked to the nature of the minimum wage rather than to the unit of measurement and adjustment, because the former seeks to meet the basic needs of a person and their family, in all respects (material, social, and cultural), as well as the costs of compulsory education for minors.
Digital registration: 2030387 / Thesis: 1st/J. 42/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
To determine whether full compensation for harm resulting from a violation of the human right to health is warranted, it is necessary to clearly identify the facts that gave rise to such harm.
In this regard, when dealing with a case of medical malpractice, the Executive Commission for Victim Assistance must conduct a comprehensive analysis of the facts in order to determine the harm caused by the violation and to establish a truly satisfactory comprehensive remedy that allows victims to rebuild their lives. This is so because, while one might think that the victimizing act is the primary event—consisting of inadequate medical treatment—the truth is that this initial act can lead to others that are interconnected and that further violate the human right to health of the direct victim and their family members.
Digital registration number: 2030323 / Thesis: 1a. XVII/2025 (11a.)
SCJN Isolated Opinion
COFEPRIS must issue guidelines and requirements for health authorization that are reasonable, specific, and based on the needs of the specific case, avoiding excessive or impractical conditions that would undermine the effects of the constitutional protection ruling.
COFEPRIS’s compliance with the constitutional protection ruling is flawed when it imposes inapplicable and excessive requirements, such as the need for permits issued by other agencies and the use of regulations designed for drug manufacturing or research purposes. Far from facilitating the mandated health authorization, these requirements create obstacles that undermine the intended effects of the constitutional protection ruling.
Digital registration number: 2030326 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CS. J/29 C (11th)
Case Law of Regional Plenary Sessions
The insurer is not deemed to have implicitly waived its right to terminate the contract merely because it did not exercise that right within the statutory time limit, even if it became aware of the increased risk through its adjuster after the loss occurred.
It follows that the implied waiver of the right to terminate the contract due to an increase in risk depends on the insured party fulfilling their obligation to notify the insurer in writing of the increased risk within the statutory time limit set forth in Articles 52, 53, and 58 of the Insurance Contract Act, and prior to the occurrence of the loss, as the insured is the party aware of such circumstances. If the insured fails to disclose this information, the consequence will be that the company’s obligations shall cease ipso jure.
Digital registration number: 2030374 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CS. J/27 C (11th)
Case Law of Regional Plenary Sessions
Before filing an amparo action, the appeal or motion to set aside the decision must be exhausted, depending on the amount in dispute, with respect to the decision regarding preliminary injunctions in ordinary civil proceedings.
A preliminary injunction is a special, independent proceeding that does not preclude recourse to the general rules governing appeals, nor does it provide that the order granting the injunction is final and non-appealable. Therefore, it may be challenged by filing an appeal if the amount in dispute exceeds the threshold established by law; if the amount in dispute is indeterminate, it may be challenged by filing a motion for reconsideration.
Digital record: 2030324 / Thesis: XV.3o. J/1 C (11a.)
Case Law of the Circuit Courts of Appeals
Concurrent jurisdiction constitutes an exception to the express submission agreed upon in the underlying contract in oral commercial enforcement proceedings.
This is because, in this specific case, an exception applies to the express submission clause provided for in Article 1093 of the Commercial Code, since the courts operating within the territorial jurisdiction established in the relevant contractual clause lack jurisdiction to hear oral commercial enforcement proceedings due to the amount in dispute, which would require the plaintiff to travel to a location other than that agreed upon in the contract forming the basis of the action.
Digital record: 2030334 / Thesis: I.11o.C. J/21 K (11a.)
Case Law of the Circuit Courts of Appeals
Ordinary civil proceedings are the appropriate and effective means of claiming damages in an amount greater than the sum set as security in the amparo proceeding.
This is because, in the motion for a stay—even if it is the appropriate remedy—it is not effective for claiming damages in an amount exceeding the amount of the security provided. Although the fundamental right to a hearing is respected in favor of the third-party intervener, it is not possible to safeguard effective judicial protection given the impossibility of resolving a dispute between private parties arising from an amount exceeding the security provided.
Digital registration number: 2030366 / Thesis: Vol. VII, No. 2, File J/26, Page L (11a.)
Case Law of the Circuit Courts of Appeals
The surety bond submitted in connection with the granting of a stay of execution in an amparo proceeding is valid if it contains the details of the relevant case file and a clear and specific description of the legal or contractual obligations of the principal.
It suffices that it contain the minimum essential information necessary to link it to the proceeding in which it is filed, such as the case number and type of case in which it is submitted, the name of the complainant, the court, and the subject matter of the obligation to be guaranteed; that is, that it is issued to compensate for any damages that may be caused to the interested third party as a result of the suspension granted and that it meets the requirements described in Article 166 of the Law on Insurance and Surety Institutions.
Digital registration number: 2030329 / Thesis: II.2o.A.13 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
In indirect appeals, the probative value of uncertified photocopies is subject to the judge’s discretion, based on the principles of logic, sound judgment, and experience, and in accordance with the system of rational evaluation of evidence.
This is because the judge may not assume an unproven fact, nor may he alter the facts as they appear in the record; therefore, such facts shall constitute conclusive evidence if they are accompanied by the appropriate certification attesting to the place, time, and circumstances in which they were recorded, along with the statement “which correspond to what is depicted therein,” for the purpose of establishing the truth of the facts and fairly resolving the matter at hand.
Digital record: 2030330 / Thesis: I.11o.C.76 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
There are exceptions to the ground of inadmissibility based on res judicata that allow the same petitioner to file a subsequent amparo action against the same act or general rule that was challenged in an earlier constitutional action.
If the ground for dismissal on which the previous amparo was dismissed in a final judgment is not one that renders the amparo unenforceable again, such a situation, by way of exception, will allow the petitioner to file a new constitutional action against the same acts and the same responsible authorities, provided that, given the nature of the act in question or the length of time that has elapsed since the first amparo was resolved, there are no issues of timeliness preventing the filing of a new constitutional action.
Digital registration number: 2030331 / Thesis: VII.1o.C.13 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The order to pay the costs of the first-instance proceedings remains in effect, even though the case has been dismissed.
Even though the law does not explicitly provide for the imposition of costs when a case becomes time-barred—unlike in the case of a withdrawal, where such costs are provided for— this does not mean that, for that reason, the party should be exempted from paying those costs, since one must adhere to the provisions initially cited, the purpose of which is to compensate the party summoned to court by its counterpart for the expenses incurred in the proceedings, since the fact that, due to the passage of time, the case is declared time-barred and, consequently, the merits of the matter are not resolved, does not imply that the party summoned to the proceedings has not incurred the expenses corresponding to the legal advice and representation provided by a legal professional.
Digital record: 2030333 / Thesis: I.11o.C.70 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Article 156 of the Amparo Law does not provide for two successive and complementary avenues through which a third party may seek compensation for damages caused by the suspension.
The possibility of enforcing liability arising from the guarantee provided in connection with the suspension before the competent judicial authority applies, where appropriate, when said guarantee was canceled or returned precisely because the relevant motion was not filed within the six-month period established for that purpose. However, if the interested third party filed the action for damages and the court ordered the enforcement of the guarantee provided by the complainant, the third party’s right to enforce it was thereby exhausted.
Digital registration number: 2030344 / Thesis: II.2o.A.9 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
When an order is issued to summon the third party by public notice, at the complainant’s expense, the court must conduct an ex officio inquiry to determine the third party’s financial situation.
The court must examine, in each individual case, the evidence on the record that allows it to determine, in a well-founded and reasoned manner, whether the petitioner is entitled to an exemption from paying for the publication of the notices. If it is determined that the petitioner must cover the costs of the summonses, the content of the notice must be reviewed to verify whether the cost can be reduced, provided that this does not affect the necessary information that the third party must know in order to be properly summoned.
Digital registration number: 2030352 / Thesis: II.2o.A.14 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The grounds for dismissal based on the lapse of the contested act are not upheld, even if the act’s term has expired, if the impact has left a lasting effect on the complainant’s legal position and is likely to recur.
It is incorrect to assume that the complainant regains full enjoyment of their rights merely because the contested act ceases to be in effect before or during the proceedings of the amparo action, if that act has left a lasting impact and is of a repetitive and ephemeral nature, as a practical, concrete, and legally significant problem would remain unresolved; if the authority’s powers were left unchecked, this could result in a constant infringement of the complainant’s legal sphere. To hold otherwise—that is, to split the adjudication and apply that ground for dismissal—would compel the complainant, with each recurrence, to file a new amparo proceeding, leaving the original claim forever unheard.
Digital registration number: 2030348 / Thesis: I.11o.C.73 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
If, in the original proceeding, the petitioner obtained a partially favorable judgment and files a direct appeal against the portion of the judgment that is unfavorable to them, the fact that they also file a motion to finalize the judgment in their favor does not constitute express consent to the entirety of the contested judgment.
If the contested judgment is not entirely unfavorable to the complaining party, the fact that it takes steps to enforce the partial ruling in its favor does not mean that it is accepting all the terms of the judgment itself. Therefore, when the parties obtain a judgment that entails certain losses as well as gains, they have the full right to: I) challenge, through the appropriate ordinary or extraordinary remedy or means of defense, the provisions of the judgment that were not favorable to them in whole or in part; and II) take the necessary actions to enforce the right recognized, established, or asserted in the judgment, by availing themselves of one or more of the remedies they sought.
Digital registration number: 2030365 / Thesis: I.12o.C.2 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Clauses that stipulate the repayment of loans at the investment unit value (UDI) in effect at the time the debt is paid in full are considered unconventional.
In loans denominated in UDIS, the debtor bears the burden of the depreciation of the value of money because the debt grows daily in line with inflation, and because ancillary amounts related to the loan are also calculated based on the value of the UDIS, making the debt unpayable. This constitutes exploitation of man by man, which is prohibited by Article 21, paragraph 3, of the American Convention on Human Rights.
Digital registration number: 2030372 / Thesis: I.1o.T.5 L (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
A copy of the appointment issued by the Mexico City Government, certified by the head of the Office of Legal Counsel and Legal Services, is sufficient to establish the legal standing of the director general of a local government agency in an indirect amparo proceeding.
The authority to certify granted to the Office of Legal Counsel cannot be considered limited to documents intended for use in administrative proceedings and not for presentation before courts. Therefore, the copy of the appointment issued by the Mexico City Government, which contains the certification made by the head of the Legal Counsel and Legal Services Office stating that the document is a true copy of the original that was presented to him, is sufficient to establish the legal standing of the director general of a local public administration agency in an indirect amparo proceeding.
Digital registration number: 2030376 / Thesis: XI.2o.C.18 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The two-year period provided for in Article 81, Section II, of the Insurance Contract Law for the statute of limitations on actions to enforce the contract to take effect is interrupted by the insured’s request for Condusef to issue a technical opinion.
The technical opinion requested from Condusef, once the conciliation proceedings have concluded, also interrupts the statute of limitations period, as it falls under the provision set forth in Article 84 of the aforementioned law, pursuant to which, in addition to the ordinary grounds for interrupting the statute of limitations, it shall be interrupted by the appointment of experts in connection with the occurrence of the incident. This is based on the fact that the aforementioned opinion is also rendered in connection with the incident, for the purpose of obtaining a specialized opinion regarding the validity of the plaintiff’s claim, just as is the intent behind the appointment of experts.
Digital registration number: 2030380 / Thesis: I.11o.C.66 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
A court ruling, as an act issued by a state authority, is valid and enforceable from the moment it is issued, provided it meets the requirements set forth in applicable law.
Unless otherwise expressly provided by law, it is sufficient for the judicial authority to issue the ruling for it to be enforceable immediately, since its effects or validity may only be suspended by a higher court when the appeals provided for in procedural law are filed, or by virtue of a suspension ordered in an extraordinary legal remedy such as an amparo proceeding. Until such a ruling is revoked or a court declares it null and void, its effectiveness shall continue.
Digital registration number: 2030386 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CS. J/20 A (11th)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The fact that an appeal was not filed because it was submitted to a different reception office of the Administrative Court of the State of Jalisco than the one specified in an administrative decision violates the right to effective judicial protection.
The fact that an appeal is deemed not to have been filed because it was not submitted to the Court Clerk’s Office authorized by an administrative order of the Court violates the right to effective judicial protection, because the decision is based on a procedural formality that lacks justification, as it constitutes a factual impediment or obstacle to accessing the court, given that the petition was in fact received through the clerk’s office of the authority that issued the contested decision.
Digital registration number: 2030388 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CN. J/70 A (11th)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
The authority to order inspection visits regarding urban development lies exclusively with the municipal governments of Mexico City.
The Law on the Administrative Verification Institute, in Articles 14(A)(c) and 23(IV), grants the authority to order verification visits related to urban development; however, in accordance with the system of jurisdiction established in the Federal Constitution, such visits may only be conducted in coordination with the municipal governments and in cases specifically authorized by law.
Publication prepared by Zusel Soto Vilchis and Daniel Majewski del Castillo
