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 1985–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keith v. Kinneygreen2 sentences2026Corinthian, 812 P.2d at 722 ; see Kinney, 961 P.2d at 519 . 2026SUMMARY July 9, 2026 2026 COA 57 No. 25CA0227, Bechtholdt v. Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc. — Real Property — Quiet Title; Civil Procedure — Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties Keith v. Kinney, 961 P.2d 516 (Colo. App. 1997), held that a quiet title claim that was not resolved by a district court as to all parties was improperly certified as final under C.R.C.P. 54(b). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Hancockgreen1 sentence2024See Miller v. Hancock, 2017 COA 141 , ¶ 46 (district court’s award of costs must include an explanation of whether and which costs are deemed reasonable). | 1 | 1 |
Dorman v. Petrol Aspen, Inc.green1 sentence2022Rule 12(b)(5) Motion ¶ 29 Having determined that the district court erred in dismissing Hill’s claim for a declaratory judgment under Rule 12(b)( 1), we next consider whether the district court erred in dismissing the claim under Rule 12(b)(5). 6 A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law ¶ 30 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(5) “is designed to allow defendants to ‘test the formal 6 Because we conclude that dismissal of the quiet title claim was proper under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) , we need not address whether it was also proper under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5). 15 sufficiency | 1 | 1 |
Coors Brewing Co. v. Floydgreen1 sentence2022Rule 12(b)(5) Motion ¶ 29 Having determined that the district court erred in dismissing Hill’s claim for a declaratory judgment under Rule 12(b)( 1), we next consider whether the district court erred in dismissing the claim under Rule 12(b)(5). 6 A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law ¶ 30 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(5) “is designed to allow defendants to ‘test the formal 6 Because we conclude that dismissal of the quiet title claim was proper under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) , we need not address whether it was also proper under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5). 15 sufficiency | 1 | 1 |
Moody v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2010Second, while appellate courts may raise standing sua sponte, fairness requires consideration of whether the appellate court has “a complete and factually developed lower court record.” Moody v. People, 159 P.3d 611, 615 (Colo.2007). | 1 | 1 |
Harding Glass Co. v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1985Public Service Co. v. Linnebur, 687 P.2d 506 (Colo.App.1984) (certiorari granted August 20, 1984); see Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, supra. However, a quiet title claim is separable from slander and defamation claims, and therefore, properly certifiable under C.R.C.P. 54(b). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Corinthian Hill Metropolitan District v. Keen
green
2 sentences2026Corinthian, 812 P.2d at 722 . 2026Corinthian, 812 P.2d at 722 ; see Kinney, 961 P.2d at 519 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Corporon v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026The division adopted a “pragmatic test” for determining whether “multiple claims” are separate for purposes of Rule 54(b): Certification is proper if “a claimant pleads claims for which his possible recoveries are more 18 than one and when a judgment rendered on one of his claims would not bar a judgment on his other claim(s).” Id. ¶ 37 Under that test, the division determined that the defamation order was properly certified because it “would not bar [the plaintiff] from receiving a verdict on the republication claim since each defamatory statement upon a separate publication is a separate cla 2026The division adopted a “pragmatic test” for determining whether “multiple claims” are separate for purposes of Rule 54(b): Certification is proper if “a claimant pleads claims for which his possible recoveries are more 18 than one and when a judgment rendered on one of his claims would not bar a judgment on his other claim(s).” Id. ¶ 37 Under that test, the division determined that the defamation order was properly certified because it “would not bar [the plaintiff] from receiving a verdict on the republication claim since each defamatory statement upon a separate publication is a separate cla | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Linnebur
green
1 sentence1985Public Service Co. v. Linnebur, 687 P.2d 506 (Colo.App.1984) (certiorari granted August 20, 1984); see Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, supra. However, a quiet title claim is separable from slander and defamation claims, and therefore, properly certifiable under C.R.C.P. 54(b). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Sisneros v. First National Bank of Denver
green
2 sentences1985Sisneros v. First National Bank, 689 P.2d 1178 (Colo.App.1984). 1985Sisneros v. First National Bank, 689 P.2d 1178 (Colo.App.1984). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.