green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
36.6 score
“if both the existence and identity of the agent's principal are fully disclosed to the other party, the agent does not become a party to any contract which he negotiates.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Smart v. Stropas
if both the existence and identity of the agent's principal are fully disclosed to the other party, the agent does not become a party to any contract which he negotiates.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rocky Mountain Exploration, Inc. v. Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
whether a principal is partially or completely disclosed is a question of fact.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Northcreek
See Fink v. Montgomery Elevator Co. of Colo., 421 P.2d 735, 737 (Colo. 1966) (“[A] party is not liable upon a contract signed by him on behalf of another . . . when he has given notice to the third party that there is [a] principal for whom he acts and also notice of the name or identity of the principal.”); Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1001 (Colo. 1998) (“If both the existence and identity of the agent’s principal are fully disclosed to the other party, the agent does not become a party to any contract which he negotiates.” (quoting Harold Gill Reuschlein & Wil…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Boxer F2, LP v. Bronchick
The final prong of the veil piercing inquiry considers “whether an equitable result will be achieved by disregarding the corporate form and holding the shareholder personally liable for the acts of the business entity.” Phillips, 139 P.3d at 644 (citing Water, Waste & Land, Inc., v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1004 (Colo. 1998)); see also Great Neck, 37 P.3d at 490 (“Piercing the corporate veil is an equitable remedy, requiring balancing of the equities in each particular case.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Stone Pine Investment Banking
Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1004 (Colo. 1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Floyd Nelson v. Encompass PAHS Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC d/b/a Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Littleton Rule Made Absolute en banc JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ JUSTICE HOOD JUSTICE GABRIEL
The third of its kind in the country, the Act “includes some of the same basic features found in the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act of 1996 (‘Model Act’) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.” LaFond, ¶ 15, 343 P.3d at 944 ; Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1000 (Colo. 1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Floyd Nelson v. Encompass PAHS Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC d/b/a Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Littleton Rule Made Absolute en banc JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ JUSTICE HOOD JUSTICE GABRIEL
The third of its kind in the country, the Act “includes some of the same basic features found in the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act of 1996 (‘Model Act’) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.” LaFond, ¶ 15, 343 P.3d at 944 ; Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1000 (Colo. 1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stone Creek Business Center, LLLP v. Stone Creek-Colorado, LLC
Id.; Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1004 (Colo. 1998); Great Neck Plaza, L.P. v. Le Peep Restaurants, LLC, 37 P.3d 485, 490 (Colo. App. 2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Clark
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247 , 254 n.10, amended, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1997), abrogated on other grounds by Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1, 7 (Colo.2001). . 1150 "The language contained in the brackets [noted above] should be included in the complicity jury instruction only in those cases where [two] or more persons, possibly including the defendant, together committed the essential elements of the underlying erime." Bogdanow, 955 P.2d at 997.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
LaFond v. Sweeney
Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1000 (Colo.1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wonjoong Kim v. Hyungkeun Sun (In re Hyungkeun Sun)
Veil-piercing remains the exception, not the rule, and the corporate veil will be pierced only in "extraordinary circumstances.” Phillips, 139 P.3d at 644 (citing Leonard v. McMorris, 63 P.3d 323, 330 (Colo.2003) and Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1004 (Colo.1998)). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Phillips v. Reed Group, Ltd.
To pierce the corporate veil under Colorado law, the claimant must show that (1) “the corporate entity is the alter ego of the shareholder,” (2) “justice requires” the veil to be pierced because “the corporate fiction was used to perpetrate a fraud or defeat a rightful claim ... [and] to shield a dominant shareholder’s improprieties,” and (3) “an equitable result will be achieved by ... holding the shareholder personally liable for the acts of the business entity.” Connolly v. Englewood Post No. 322 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Inc., 139 P.3d 639, 644 (Colo.…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McCallum Family L.L.C. v. Winger
Phillips, 139 P.3d at 644 ; Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1004 (Colo.1998); Great Neck, 37 P.3d 485 at 490 .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Sheffield Services Co. v. Trowbridge
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1000 (Colo.1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Connolly v. Englewood Post No. 322 Veterans of Foreign Wars of United States, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Leonard, 63 P.3d at 330 ; Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1004 (Colo.1998).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Phillips
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Leonard, 63 P.3d at 330 ; Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1004 (Colo.1998).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Close
Bogdanov v. People, supra, 941 P.2d at 254 n. 10, 955 P.2d at 997.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of King
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1003 (Colo. 1998); Knight, 537 P.2d at 1086 (“At common law, a person could adopt another name at will.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stackhouse v. People
(2×)
See Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247 , 252â53 (Colo. 1997) (âStructural errors are not amenable to either a harmless or a plain error analysis because such errors affect âthe framework within which the trial proceeds,â and are not errors in the trial process itself.â (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991))), amended, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo. 1997) (mem.), disapproved of on different grounds by Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2001); Griego, 19 P.3d at 7 (quoting the Bogdanov language above as controlling precedent regarding structural error); Medina v. P…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Carter
See Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247 , 254 n. 10, amended by 955 P.2d 997 (Colo. 1997), disapproved of by Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2001); COLJI-Crim Gl:06 (2008). 2 Jury instruction 23, taken from People v. Alvarado, 284 P.3d 99, 102, 103 (Colo. App. 2011), contained the approved supplemental instruction given in that case, and a paraphrased portion of the court’s analysis.
discussed
Cited "see"
Young v. Bush
(2×)
See Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1000 (Colo.1998); Sheffield, 211 P.3d at 719 .
cited
Cited "see"
LaFond v. Sweeney
See Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1000 (Colo.1998); see §§ 7-80-101 to -1101, C.R.S.2011 (Colorado Limited Liability Company Act).
cited
Cited "see"
Colborne Corp. v. Weinstein
See Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1003 (Colo.1998); Sheffield Services Co. v. Trowbridge, 211 P.3d 714, 720 (Colo.App.2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Collins
See Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247, 258-54 (Colo.1997), modified, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1997), disapproved of on other grounds by Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo. *1185 2001); People v. Close, 22 P.3d 983, 987 (Colo.App.2000), aff'd, 48 P.3d 528 (Colo.2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Chavez
A person is liable as a principal for the behavior of another "if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, he or she aids, abets, advises, or encourages the other person in planning or committing the offense." § 18-1-603; see Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247, 252 (Colo.) ("the complicitor must have the culpable mental state required for the underlying crime committed by the prin-cipall, and] ... the complicitor must intend that his own conduct promote or facilitate the commission of the crime committed by the principal"), amended, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1997); Peop…
cited
Cited "see"
People v. Armijo
See Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247, 255 (Colo.1997), amended, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1997), disapproved of on other grounds by Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo.2001).
cited
Cited "see"
People v. Garrison
Gleason v. Becker-Johnson Assocs., Inc., 916 P.2d 662 (Colo.App.1996); see Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1998).
cited
Cited "see"
In the Interest of A.P.H.
See generally Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1998).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Aph
See generally Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Bovard
(2×)
See generally Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1998)(when the district court exercises its authority to decide the case based on the record developed below, as opposed to a trial de novo, it acts as a reviewing court and must accept the facts as found by the county court, and its review is limited to the sufficiency of the evidence); People v. Anderson, 177 Colo. 84 , 492 P.2d 844 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
People v. Simpson
See Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247 , amended, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Filho v. Rodriguez
See Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1998)(a partially disclosed principal is one whose existence, but not identity, is known to the other party).
cited
Cited "see"
Great Neck Plaza L.P. v. Le Peep Restaurants, LLC
See Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1998).
cited
Cited "see"
People v. Williams
See Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247 (Colo.1997), as amended, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Addy v. Myers
(2×)
See Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997, 1001-04 (Colo.1998) (holding owner of limited liability company may be personally liable to third party if owner acts as agent for company and fails to disclose existence and identity of principal). [¶ 12] Moreover, the operating agreement for the M.A.H.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
State ex rel. Heitkamp v. Family Life Services, Inc.
See Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham , 955 P.2d 997, 1001-04 (Colo. 1998) (holding owner of limited liability company may be personally liable to third party if owner acts as agent for company and fails to disclose existence and identity of principal). [¶12] Moreover, the operating agreement for the M.A.H.D.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rocky Mountain Exploration, Inc. v. Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
(2×)
See, e.g., Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham, 955 P.2d 997 , 1002 (Colo.1998) ; Filho v. Rodriguez, 36 P.3d 199 , 200 (Colo.App.2001) ; Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.03 (2006) (hereinafter Restatement).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rocky Mountain Exploration, Inc. v. Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
(2×)
See, e.g. , Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham , 955 P.2d 997, 1002 (Colo. 1998); Filho v. Rodriguez , 36 P.3d 199, 200 (Colo. App. 2001); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.03 (2006) (hereinafter Restatement).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rocky Mountain Exploration, Inc. v. Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
(2×)
See, e.g. , Water, Waste & Land, Inc. v. Lanham , 955 P.2d 997, 1002 (Colo. 1998); Filho v. Rodriguez , 36 P.3d 199, 200 (Colo. App. 2001); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.03 (2006) (hereinafter Restatement).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Witek
People v. Garcia, supra, 28 P.3d at 344 ; see also Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247, 255-56 , amended, 955 P.2d 997 (Colo.1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Branko BOGDANOV
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado
No. 96SC34.
Supreme Court of Colorado.
Nov 17, 1997.
Cited by 26 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Colorado (1)
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the Joint Notice of Errata filed herein, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises,
IT IS ORDERED the last paragraph of footnote 10 of this court’s opinion announced on June 16, 1997, 941 P.2d 247, be amended as follows:
The language contained in the brackets should be included in the complicity jury instruction only in those cases where TWO or more persons, possibly including the defendant, together committed the essential elements of the underlying crime.