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.
5 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 2024–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Marriage of Aragongreen2 sentences2025See id.; see also Payan v. Nash Finch Co., 2012 COA 135M , ¶ 18 (considering the lodestar analysis when determining the reasonableness of attorney fees); In re Marriage of Aragon, 2019 COA 76, ¶ 22 (directing the court to conduct a lodestar analysis when determining the reasonableness of attorney fees under section 14-10-119). ¶ 42 Thus, we reverse the district court’s award of attorney fees and remand for further proceedings. 2025See also In re Marriage of Aragon, 2019 COA 76, ¶ 22 (directing the court to conduct a lodestar analysis when determining the reasonableness of attorney fees under section 14-10-119). | 2 | 2 |
Mullens v. Hansel-Hendersongreen1 sentence2026Id. at 445 ; see also Mullens, 65 P.3d at 999 (Colo. 2002) (“Not allowing an attorney to receive reasonable payment for completing legal services . . . to the benefit of the client, under a good faith belief that he would receive an agreed[-]upon compensation for his services, solely because the contract was [deficient,] is inequitable and unjustly enriches the client.”). 8 ¶ 19 A lodestar analysis is one way for a court to determine the reasonable value of an attorney’s services when faced with an unenforceable fee agreement. | 1 | 1 |
Bertoia v. Galaxygreen1 sentence2026Co., LLC, 2025 COA 55, ¶ 92 (Affirming the trial court’s exercise of its discretion to exclude testimony that “was rudimentary, at best, and did not involve a lodestar analysis or application of the [Colo. RPC] 1.5 factors” and the expert “did not qualify as an expert in Colorado under [CRE] 702.”). ¶ 29 Aside from his misplaced reliance on Chartier, Nestor fails to explain how the trial court’s consideration of the propriety of Ringel’s opinions amounted to an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Associates
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 445 ; see also Mullens, 65 P.3d at 999 (Colo. 2002) (“Not allowing an attorney to receive reasonable payment for completing legal services . . . to the benefit of the client, under a good faith belief that he would receive an agreed[-]upon compensation for his services, solely because the contract was [deficient,] is inequitable and unjustly enriches the client.”). 8 ¶ 19 A lodestar analysis is one way for a court to determine the reasonable value of an attorney’s services when faced with an unenforceable fee agreement. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hensley v. Eckerhart
green
1 sentence2024Hensley v. Eckerha rt , 461 U.S. 424 , 430 n.3 (1983); Colo. RPC 1.5(a) (which frames the above list as eight factors). 11 ¶ 21 But importantly, federal law also requires a court to consider the “undesirability” of the case. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.