People Ex Rel. Mm, Jr. (2009)
green
· 23 citation events
across 1 courts.
Showing the 11 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200920172026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
People Ex Rel. G.E.S. (2016)
People in Interest of M.M., 215 P.3d 1237, 1248 (Colo. App. 2009).
green
Peo in Interest of GV (2025)
See People in Interest of C.O., 541 P.2d 330, 332 (Colo. App. 1975) (absent any showing to the contrary, we must presume that a trial court considered only those matters properly before it); People in Interest of M.M., Jr., 215 P.3d 1237, 1249-50 (Colo. App. 2009) (in the context of a bench trial, we presume that the trial court disregards any evidence admitted for an improper purpose). ¶ 24 Even if the juvenile court considered — for the purposes of adjudication — the testi…
in the context of a bench trial, we presume that the trial court disregards any evidence admitted for an improper purpose
green
Peo in Interest of AH (2025)
People in Interest of M.M., 215 P.3d 1237, 1249-50 (Colo. App. 2009). 2.
green
Peo in Interest of NR (2024)
People in Interest of M.M. , 215 P.3d 1237, 1249-50 (Colo. App. 2009).
green
People in re L.K (2016)
Law ¶ 23 “Evidence of polygraph test results and the testimony of polygraph examiners are per se inadmissible in both criminal and civil trials.” People in Interest of M.M., 215 P.3d 1237, 1248 (Colo. App. 2009).
green
People ex rel. Strodtman (2011)
People in Interest of M.M., 215 P.3d 1237, 1250 (Colo.App.2009).
green
of Hogsett (2018)
See People in Interest of M.M., 215 P.3d 1237, 1249 (Colo. App. 2009) (“In the context of a bench trial, the prejudicial effect of improperly admitted evidence is generally presumed to be innocuous” because such evidence was disregarded by the court in reaching its conclusions.). ¶ 29 Additionally, the court’s finding that the December 1, 2002, marriage date reflected in the petition was “made up” was based on 15 the parties’ testimony that they celebrated anniversaries on N…
“In the context of a bench trial, the prejudicial effect of improperly admitted evidence is generally presumed to be innocuous” because such evidence was disregarded by the court in reaching its conclusions.
green
Peo in Interest of EQB (2025)
See People in Interest of M.M., Jr., 215 P.3d 1237, 1250 (Colo. App. 2009).
green
Velgersdyk v. Thompson Crossing (2024)
The district court is granted broad discretion over the admissibility of expert testimony, and we will not overturn its decision unless it was “manifestly erroneous.” Id. at ¶ 64; see also People v. Huehn, 53 P.3d 733, 736 (Colo. App. 2002) (“Whether a proper foundation has been established is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”). ¶ 38 “Under CRE 703, experts may testify as to…
green
Peo in Interest of JLS (2024)
See People in Interest of M.M., Jr., 215 P.3d 1237, 1249-50 (Colo. App. 2009) (in a bench trial, we presume that all incompetent evidence is disregarded by the court in reaching its decision, and we won’t disturb the judgment unless the court couldn’t have reached the result but for the incompetent 7 evidence).
in a bench trial, we presume that all incompetent evidence is disregarded by the court in reaching its decision, and we won’t disturb the judgment unless the court couldn’t have reached the result but for the incompetent 7 evidence
green
in the Interest of R.J.B (2021)
See People in Interest of M.M., 215 P.3d 1237, 1249-50 (Colo. App. 2009). ¶ 20 Third, the court indicated that the virtual lobby had been extensively tested and didn’t allow a sequestered witness to hear any of the proceeding. ¶ 21 Fourth, Webex is a real-time video-conference platform in which all participants may view one another.