Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48 (Colo. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48 (Colo. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lansford v. Poudre River (coloctapp, 2026-03-05)
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Lansford v. Poudre River
Colo. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
P’ship v. Stanley Structures, Inc., 12 P.3d 819, 821 (Colo. App. 2000); see Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48, ¶ 22 , 375 P.3d 1205, 1209 (A statute of repose “limits the right to bring a claim to a specific time period 11 that begins to run not when the claim accrues, but when the defendant’s last culpable act or omission takes place.”). ¶ 29 Because there is no dispute that the Lansfords filed their lawsuit against the Poudre defendants more than six years after substantial completion of the subdivision, their CDARA claims are barred if the statute of repose applies to the Poudre defenda…
cited Cited "see" Matthew K Hobbs v. City of Salida
Colo. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48, ¶ 20 (we don’t read statutory words in isolation, but in context).
discussed Cited "see" Lewis v. Taylor (2×)
Wash. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis v. Taylor , 2016 CO 48 , 375 P.3d 1205 (holding that CUFTA's time limitations provision may be tolled by express agreement).
cited Cited "see" Meardon v. Freedom Life Insurance
Colo. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48 , ¶ 20 (“The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent.”); 2A Norman J.
discussed Cited "see" Miller v. Hancock
Colo. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lewis v. Taylor , 2016 CO 48 , ¶ 20, 375 P.3d 1205 (If "the statutory language has more than one reasonable meaning" it is ambiguous.). ¶ 28 When statutory language is ambiguous, "we consider the statute's legislative history, the state of the law prior to its enactment, the problem addressed, and the statutory remedy." Lombard v. Colo. Outdoor Educ.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Berges v. County Court of Douglas County
Colo. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48, ¶ 20 , 375 P.3d 1205 (“In evaluating whether a statute is ambiguous, we do not read its words or phrases in isolation, but instead read them in context and in a manner that gives effect to the statute as a whole.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lewis
v.
Taylor
14SC469.
Supreme Court of Colorado.
Jun 20, 2016.
2016 CO 48
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published  |  Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act—Limitation of Actions—Agreements Tolling Limitation

Below is an inline preview of today's announcement sheet. Click here to utilize your browser's built in pdf functions to read this document.

This browser does not support inline PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF