32 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1945–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Pannebakergreen2 sentences1998We adopted the Gates totality of the circumstances test in People v. Pannebaker, 714 P.2d 904, 907 (Colo.1986). 1994The Gates totality of the circumstances test “places particular importance on the value of corroboration of the details of an informant’s tip by independent police work.” Pannebaker, 714 P.2d at 907 . | 2 | 3 |
Schultz v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye 23 test; HGN test results ad 2020Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye test; HGN test results admis | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gleasongreen2 sentences2021Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye 23 test; HGN test results ad 2020Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye test; HGN test results admis | 2 | 2 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2021Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye 23 test; HGN test results ad 2020Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye test; HGN test results admis | 2 | 2 |
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye 23 test; HGN test results ad 2020Ct. App. 1998) (the HGN test is a reliable indicator of the presence of alcohol in blood, and there is no need for trial courts to reapply a Frye analysis to HGN); Hawkins v. State, 476 S.E.2d 803, 806-08 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) (HGN test results admissible without expert testimony regarding the scientific validity of the test; applying a Shreck-like totality of the circumstances test); State v. Gleason, 844 P.2d 691, 694-95 (Idaho 1992) (HGN testimony admissible under Frye test as evidence of impairment); State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907, 911-12 (Me. 1997) (applying Frye test; HGN test results admis | 2 | 2 |
Holmes v. Gamblegreen2 sentences2014See Graf v. Tracy, 194 Colo. 1, 3 , 568 P.2d 467, 468 (1977) ("'The res ipsa loquitur doctrine permits a jury to infer from circumstantial evidence that the defendant was negligent when certain requisites are met."); Holmes v. Gamble, 624 P.2d 905, 906 (Colo.App.1980) (Res ipsa loquitur is "a rule of evidence which defines the circumstances under which a presumption of negligence will arise as a matter of law."), aff'd, 655 P.2d 405 (Colo.1982). . 1980Holmes v. Gamble, Colo.App., 624 P.2d 905 , (1980). | 1 | 2 |
Henderson v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2026Seymour, ¶ 54 (quoting Henderson v. People, 879 P.2d 383, 391 (Colo. 1994)). ¶ 54 The currentness or staleness of information is important to our totality of the circumstances analysis. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2025This is one of the reasons why we have repeatedly emphasized that the "totality of the circumstances analysis requires an examination of the behavior of the parties , as well as the physical, temporal, and social context of the encounter." Outlaw , 17 P.3d at 156 ; see also Chesternut , 486 U.S. at 573 ( stating that what constitutes a seizure "will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs" ) . ¶58 Sometimes, the circumstances surrounding a person's encounter with the police "are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a r 2025This is one of the reasons why we have repeatedly emphasized that the "totality of the circumstances analysis requires an examination of the behavior of the parties, as well as the physical, temporal, and social context of the encounter." Outlaw , 17 P.3d at 156; see also Chesternut , 486 U.S. at 573 (stating that what constitutes a seizure "will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs"). ¶58 Sometimes, the circumstances surrounding a person's encounter with the police "are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reason | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Chesternutgreen2 sentences2025This is one of the reasons why we have repeatedly emphasized that the "totality of the circumstances analysis requires an examination of the behavior of the parties , as well as the physical, temporal, and social context of the encounter." Outlaw , 17 P.3d at 156 ; see also Chesternut , 486 U.S. at 573 ( stating that what constitutes a seizure "will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs" ) . ¶58 Sometimes, the circumstances surrounding a person's encounter with the police "are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a r 2025This is one of the reasons why we have repeatedly emphasized that the "totality of the circumstances analysis requires an examination of the behavior of the parties, as well as the physical, temporal, and social context of the encounter." Outlaw , 17 P.3d at 156; see also Chesternut , 486 U.S. at 573 (stating that what constitutes a seizure "will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs"). ¶58 Sometimes, the circumstances surrounding a person's encounter with the police "are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reason | 1 | 1 |
Outlaw v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2025This is one of the reasons why we have repeatedly emphasized that the "totality of the circumstances analysis requires an examination of the behavior of the parties , as well as the physical, temporal, and social context of the encounter." Outlaw , 17 P.3d at 156 ; see also Chesternut , 486 U.S. at 573 ( stating that what constitutes a seizure "will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs" ) . ¶58 Sometimes, the circumstances surrounding a person's encounter with the police "are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a r 2025This is one of the reasons why we have repeatedly emphasized that the "totality of the circumstances analysis requires an examination of the behavior of the parties, as well as the physical, temporal, and social context of the encounter." Outlaw , 17 P.3d at 156; see also Chesternut , 486 U.S. at 573 (stating that what constitutes a seizure "will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs"). ¶58 Sometimes, the circumstances surrounding a person's encounter with the police "are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reason | 1 | 1 |
People v. Heilmangreen2 sentences2025This is one of the reasons why we have repeatedly emphasized that the "totality of the circumstances analysis requires an examination of the behavior of the parties , as well as the physical, temporal, and social context of the encounter." Outlaw , 17 P.3d at 156 ; see also Chesternut , 486 U.S. at 573 ( stating that what constitutes a seizure "will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs" ) . ¶58 Sometimes, the circumstances surrounding a person's encounter with the police "are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a r 2025This is one of the reasons why we have repeatedly emphasized that the "totality of the circumstances analysis requires an examination of the behavior of the parties, as well as the physical, temporal, and social context of the encounter." Outlaw , 17 P.3d at 156; see also Chesternut , 486 U.S. at 573 (stating that what constitutes a seizure "will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs"). ¶58 Sometimes, the circumstances surrounding a person's encounter with the police "are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reason | 1 | 1 |
Mendez v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2022Rather, in analyzing probable cause, we must consider "the totality of the circumstances." Bailey , ¶ 20, 427 P.3d at 827 (quoting Mendez v. People , 986 P.2d 275, 280 (Colo. 1999)). " [T]he totality of the circumstances test for probable cause is an 'all-things-considered approach' . . . ." Zuniga , ¶ 16, 372 P.3d at 1057 (quoting Harris , 568 U.S. at 1055 ). ¶30 "The probable cause standard does not lend itself to mathematical certainties and should not be laden with hypertechnical interpretations or rigid legal rules." Bailey , ¶ 21, 427 P.3d at 827 (quoting People v. Altman , 960 P.2d 1164 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Altmangreen2 sentences2022Rather, in analyzing probable cause, we must consider "the totality of the circumstances." Bailey , ¶ 20, 427 P.3d at 827 (quoting Mendez v. People , 986 P.2d 275, 280 (Colo. 1999)). " [T]he totality of the circumstances test for probable cause is an 'all-things-considered approach' . . . ." Zuniga , ¶ 16, 372 P.3d at 1057 (quoting Harris , 568 U.S. at 1055 ). ¶30 "The probable cause standard does not lend itself to mathematical certainties and should not be laden with hypertechnical interpretations or rigid legal rules." Bailey , ¶ 21, 427 P.3d at 827 (quoting People v. Altman , 960 P.2d 1164 2022Instead, it calls for "a practical, common-sense decision 14 whether a fair probability exists that a search of a particular place will reveal contraband or evidence of a crime. " Id. (quoting Altman , 960 P.2d at 1167 ). | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Brighton School District 27Jgreen2 sentences2020Dist. 27J, 2014 CO 32, ¶ 31 , 325 P.3d 571, 581 (“The CGIA was designed to specifically define—and thus limit—the circumstances when immunity is waived by public entities.”).2 To this end, the Act provides that public entities “shall be immune 2 The majority opines that, “because the CGIA derogates Colorado’s common law, we must strictly construe its immunity provisions.” Maj. op. ¶ 20. 2020Dist. 27J, 2014 CO 32, ¶ 31 , 325 P.3d 571, 581 (“The CGIA was designed to specifically define—and thus limit—the circumstances when immunity is waived by public entities.”).2 To this end, the Act provides that public entities “shall be immune 2 The majority opines that, “because the CGIA derogates Colorado’s common law, we must strictly construe its immunity provisions.” Maj. op. ¶ 20. | 1 | 1 |
Spoor v. Serotagreen1 sentence2015See Iacino v. Brown, 121 Colo. 450 , 454, 217 P.2d 266 , 268 (1950). ¶ 82 Res ipsa loquitur "is a rule of evidence which defines the circumstances under which a presumption of negligence will arise as a matter of law." Spoor v. Serota, 852 P.2d 1292 , 1295 (Colo. App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Iacino v. Browngreen2 sentences2015See Iacino v. Brown, 121 Colo. 450 , 454, 217 P.2d 266 , 268 (1950). ¶ 82 Res ipsa loquitur "is a rule of evidence which defines the circumstances under which a presumption of negligence will arise as a matter of law." Spoor v. Serota, 852 P.2d 1292 , 1295 (Colo. App.1992). 2015See Iacino v. Brown, 121 Colo. 450 , 454, 217 P.2d 266 , 268 (1950). ¶ 82 Res ipsa loquitur "is a rule of evidence which defines the circumstances under which a presumption of negligence will arise as a matter of law." Spoor v. Serota, 852 P.2d 1292 , 1295 (Colo. App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Graf v. Tracygreen2 sentences2014See Graf v. Tracy, 194 Colo. 1, 3 , 568 P.2d 467, 468 (1977) ("'The res ipsa loquitur doctrine permits a jury to infer from circumstantial evidence that the defendant was negligent when certain requisites are met."); Holmes v. Gamble, 624 P.2d 905, 906 (Colo.App.1980) (Res ipsa loquitur is "a rule of evidence which defines the circumstances under which a presumption of negligence will arise as a matter of law."), aff'd, 655 P.2d 405 (Colo.1982). . 2014See Graf v. Tracy, 194 Colo. 1, 3 , 568 P.2d 467, 468 (1977) ("'The res ipsa loquitur doctrine permits a jury to infer from circumstantial evidence that the defendant was negligent when certain requisites are met."); Holmes v. Gamble, 624 P.2d 905, 906 (Colo.App.1980) (Res ipsa loquitur is "a rule of evidence which defines the circumstances under which a presumption of negligence will arise as a matter of law."), aff'd, 655 P.2d 405 (Colo.1982). . | 1 | 1 |
People v. in the Interest of D.F.green1 sentence2007People v. D.F., 933 P.2d 9, 15-16 (Colo.1997)(applying totality of the circumstances test at the appellate level). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Denisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. LaFrankiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hamiltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lubbengreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Piersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences1990Relying principally on the “totality of circumstances” test adopted in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the court ruled in pertinent part as follows: Considering the totality of the circumstances and the requirement that doubts be resolved in favor of the issuing Judge’s determination that the affidavit was sufficient, this Court nevertheless concludes that the affidavit was not sufficient to support probable cause to believe that contraband would be found at 321 Lucille, Avondale, Colorado. 1990Relying principally on the “totality of circumstances” test adopted in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the court ruled in pertinent part as follows: Considering the totality of the circumstances and the requirement that doubts be resolved in favor of the issuing Judge’s determination that the affidavit was sufficient, this Court nevertheless concludes that the affidavit was not sufficient to support probable cause to believe that contraband would be found at 321 Lucille, Avondale, Colorado. | 3 | 1988–1994 |
Denver Tramway Corp. v. Kuttner
green
2 sentences1968Accordingly if the circumstances do not suggest or indicate superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation on the part of the party *180 charged or if plaintiff himself has equal or superior means of information, the doctrine cannot be invoked.” This court, in Denver Tramway Corporation v. Kuttner, 95 Colo. 312 35 P.2d 852 , cautioned that: “* * * The * * * doctrine * * * is the creature of stern necessity for the sake of guarding against a miscarriage of justice that in a negligence case might follow because of the mere secrecy or invisibility of danger concerning which the outsider could 1968Accordingly if the circumstances do not suggest or indicate superior knowledge or opportunity for explanation on the part of the party *180 charged or if plaintiff himself has equal or superior means of information, the doctrine cannot be invoked.” This court, in Denver Tramway Corporation v. Kuttner, 95 Colo. 312 35 P.2d 852 , cautioned that: “* * * The * * * doctrine * * * is the creature of stern necessity for the sake of guarding against a miscarriage of justice that in a negligence case might follow because of the mere secrecy or invisibility of danger concerning which the outsider could | 2 | 1948–1968 |
People v. Carian
green
1 sentence2026Unlike the cases on which Duran relies, the argument here was confined to the evidence presented and did not ask the jury to hold him accountable for the broader consequences of his crimes, 13 see People v. Tibbels, 2019 COA 175, ¶ 20 , rev’d on other grounds, 2022 CO 1 , or otherwise misstate the evidence, see People v. Carian, 2017 COA 106, ¶ 57 . ¶ 27 We next conclude there was no misconduct in the prosecutor’s argument that the circumstances at the bar showed that Duran was intoxicated. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Ernest Joseph Tibbels, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent v. The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner
green
1 sentence2026Unlike the cases on which Duran relies, the argument here was confined to the evidence presented and did not ask the jury to hold him accountable for the broader consequences of his crimes, 13 see People v. Tibbels, 2019 COA 175, ¶ 20 , rev’d on other grounds, 2022 CO 1 , or otherwise misstate the evidence, see People v. Carian, 2017 COA 106, ¶ 57 . ¶ 27 We next conclude there was no misconduct in the prosecutor’s argument that the circumstances at the bar showed that Duran was intoxicated. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Miller
green
1 sentence2026Miller, 75 P.3d at 1113 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
v. Tibbels
green
1 sentence2026Unlike the cases on which Duran relies, the argument here was confined to the evidence presented and did not ask the jury to hold him accountable for the broader consequences of his crimes, 13 see People v. Tibbels, 2019 COA 175, ¶ 20 , rev’d on other grounds, 2022 CO 1 , or otherwise misstate the evidence, see People v. Carian, 2017 COA 106, ¶ 57 . ¶ 27 We next conclude there was no misconduct in the prosecutor’s argument that the circumstances at the bar showed that Duran was intoxicated. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Florida v. Harris
green
1 sentence2022Rather, in analyzing probable cause, we must consider "the totality of the circumstances." Bailey , ¶ 20, 427 P.3d at 827 (quoting Mendez v. People , 986 P.2d 275, 280 (Colo. 1999)). " [T]he totality of the circumstances test for probable cause is an 'all-things-considered approach' . . . ." Zuniga , ¶ 16, 372 P.3d at 1057 (quoting Harris , 568 U.S. at 1055 ). ¶30 "The probable cause standard does not lend itself to mathematical certainties and should not be laden with hypertechnical interpretations or rigid legal rules." Bailey , ¶ 21, 427 P.3d at 827 (quoting People v. Altman , 960 P.2d 1164 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Zuniga
green
1 sentence2022Rather, in analyzing probable cause, we must consider "the totality of the circumstances." Bailey , ¶ 20, 427 P.3d at 827 (quoting Mendez v. People , 986 P.2d 275, 280 (Colo. 1999)). " [T]he totality of the circumstances test for probable cause is an 'all-things-considered approach' . . . ." Zuniga , ¶ 16, 372 P.3d at 1057 (quoting Harris , 568 U.S. at 1055 ). ¶30 "The probable cause standard does not lend itself to mathematical certainties and should not be laden with hypertechnical interpretations or rigid legal rules." Bailey , ¶ 21, 427 P.3d at 827 (quoting People v. Altman , 960 P.2d 1164 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Deason
green
1 sentence2017Rule 48 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure is virtually identical to the speedy trial statute and represents its procedural counterpart, People v. Deason, 670 P.2d 792 , 794 n.2 (Colo. 1983). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Holmes v. Gamble
green
1 sentence2014See Graf v. Tracy, 194 Colo. 1, 3 , 568 P.2d 467, 468 (1977) ("'The res ipsa loquitur doctrine permits a jury to infer from circumstantial evidence that the defendant was negligent when certain requisites are met."); Holmes v. Gamble, 624 P.2d 905, 906 (Colo.App.1980) (Res ipsa loquitur is "a rule of evidence which defines the circumstances under which a presumption of negligence will arise as a matter of law."), aff'd, 655 P.2d 405 (Colo.1982). . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Colorado v. Connelly
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Fare v. Michael C.
green
2 sentences2001In Fare, the court employed the same totality of the circumstances test as is used to determine whether any defendant effectively waived his rights. 442 U.S. at 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 . 2001In Fare, the court employed the same totality of the circumstances test as is used to determine whether any defendant effectively waived his rights. 442 U.S. at 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Harold B. Dorman v. United States green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Miller green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Wells Plaza Ltd. Partnership green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Austin v. Litvak green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Lujan v. Colorado State Board of Education green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| North Carolina v. Butler red | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| St. Luke's Hospital v. Schmaltz green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Pickett green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Brown v. People green | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Mooney v. People neutral | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Jordan v. People green | 1 | 1947–1947 |
| Ruiz v. Garayalde green | 1 | 1947–1947 |
| Hertz Driv-Ur-Self System, Inc. v. Hendrickson green | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| Barsch v. Hammond neutral | 1 | 1945–1945 |
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.
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.