Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
American Water Development, Inc. v. City of Alamosagreen1 sentence2012Water Dev., Inc. v. City of Alamosa, 874 P.2d 352, 389-90 (Colo.1994). 5 We find no abuse of discretion here. ¶ 37 As to Gomez's request for attorney fees under section 18-17-102(4) against Ar-chuleta, alleging that Archuleta's position in regard to the Archuleta Ditch was substantially frivolous, groundless, or vexatious, the water court in a separate order dated February 7, 2012, refused to award attorney fees to Gomez against Archuleta. | 1 | 1 |
Foxley v. Foxleygreen1 sentence2011Foxley v. Foxley, 939 P.2d 455, 460 (Colo.App.1996); Parker v. Davis, 888 P.2d 324, 327 (Colo.App.1994) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Davisgreen1 sentence2011Foxley v. Foxley, 939 P.2d 455, 460 (Colo.App.1996); Parker v. Davis, 888 P.2d 324, 327 (Colo.App.1994) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Levin v. Anounagreen1 sentence2008See Hawley v. Mowatt, 160 P.3d 421, 427 (Colo.App.2007) (trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a request for attorney fees under section 18-17-102); Levin v. Anouna, 990 P.2d 1136, 1139 (Colo.App.1999) (a factual determination of the amount, under the evidence, that constitutes a reasonable award of attorney fees in connection with a contempt proceeding is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court). | 1 | 1 |
Hawley v. Mowattgreen1 sentence2008See Hawley v. Mowatt, 160 P.3d 421, 427 (Colo.App.2007) (trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a request for attorney fees under section 18-17-102); Levin v. Anouna, 990 P.2d 1136, 1139 (Colo.App.1999) (a factual determination of the amount, under the evidence, that constitutes a reasonable award of attorney fees in connection with a contempt proceeding is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Rydergreen1 sentence2007See Mitchell v. Ryder, 104 P.3d 316, 321 (Colo.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
E-470 Public Highway Authority v. Jagowgreen1 sentence2003See E-470 Public Highwoy Authority v. Jagow, supra; see also Weber v. Wallace, 789 P.2d 427 (Colo.App.1989)(trial court's decision under § 13-17-102 will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Weber v. Wallacegreen1 sentence2003See E-470 Public Highwoy Authority v. Jagow, supra; see also Weber v. Wallace, 789 P.2d 427 (Colo.App.1989)(trial court's decision under § 13-17-102 will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cherokee Metropolitan District v. Upper Black Squirrel Creek Designated Ground Water Management District
green
1 sentence2015Cherokee II, 247 P.3d at 575 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re the Marriage of Rodrick
green
1 sentence2011Rodrick, 176 P.3d at 815 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Harrison v. Smith
green
1 sentence2008In Harrison v. Smith, 821 P.2d 832 (Colo.App.1991), a division of this court affirmed an award of section 18-17-102 attorney fees when, although credible evidence existed that could have been produced at trial, the plaintiff failed to obtain and designate the necessary witnesses for trial. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Stepanek v. Delta County
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 367 . 4 We found, first, that a county attorney serves a prosecutorial function in filing a petition for temporary guardianship and therefore, is entitled to absolute immunity from a fee request made under section 13-17-102. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.