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.
31 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gray v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2008In describing the modern presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-executing, the Florida Supreme Court explained that, without such a presumption, “the legislature would have the power to nullify the will of the people expressed in their constitution,.... ” Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla.1960). 2004E.g., Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla.1960) (noting that "the modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-operating"); Russell, 101 N.E.2d at 291 (stating that "the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing"); Beatty v. Wittekamp, 171 S.C. 326 , 172 S.E. 122, 125 (1933) (declaring that "[t]he general presumption of law is that all constitutional provisions are self-executing"); see generally 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 100 (1998). | 2 | 2 |
Mamalis v. Bornovasgreen2 sentences1981Bradley v. Mann, 34 Colo.App. 135 , 525 P.2d 492 ; Accord, Mamalis v. Bornovas, 112 N.H. 423 , 297 A.2d 660 . 1981Bradley v. Mann, 34 Colo.App. 135 , 525 P.2d 492 ; Accord, Mamalis v. Bornovas, 112 N.H. 423 , 297 A.2d 660 . | 2 | 2 |
Kashiya Nwanguma v. Donald Trumpgreen1 sentence2023Nwanguma v. Trump, 903 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2018); accord Bible Believers v. Wayne Cnty., 805 F.3d 228, 246 (6th Cir. 2015).18 3. | 1 | 1 |
Bible Believers v. Wayne Countygreen1 sentence2023Nwanguma v. Trump, 903 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2018); accord Bible Believers v. Wayne Cnty., 805 F.3d 228, 246 (6th Cir. 2015).18 3. | 1 | 1 |
Wagner v. Fairlambgreen2 sentences2021Wagner v. Fairlamb, 151 Colo. 481, 487 , 379 P.2d 165, 169 (1963). 2021Wagner v. Fairlamb, 151 Colo. 481, 487 , 379 P.2d 165, 169 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Department of Natural Resources v. Hessgreen1 sentence2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif | 1 | 1 |
The Riverton Country Club v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif 2015Eq. 435 , 58 A.2d 89, 96 (N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Youngers v. Schafergreen2 sentences2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif 2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2015Ass'n, 120 Ky. 413 , 86 S.W. 1111, 1112 (1905) ("[Rleservations or exceptions are enforced, although contained in the habendum clause of the deed, as fully as if set out in the granting clause, when on the whole instrument the intention of the parties is sufficient ly expressed to be enforced."); Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123 , 428 P.2d 978, 980-81 (1967) (recognizing that "where a deed is susceptible to alternative construction, the construction most favorable to the grantee will be adopted," but still finding that in light of "the modern rule" the reservation in the habendum at issue was not 2015Ass'n, 120 Ky. 413 , 86 S.W. 1111, 1112 (1905) ("[Rleservations or exceptions are enforced, although contained in the habendum clause of the deed, as fully as if set out in the granting clause, when on the whole instrument the intention of the parties is sufficient ly expressed to be enforced."); Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123 , 428 P.2d 978, 980-81 (1967) (recognizing that "where a deed is susceptible to alternative construction, the construction most favorable to the grantee will be adopted," but still finding that in light of "the modern rule" the reservation in the habendum at issue was not | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Espinosagreen2 sentences2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif 2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Fleckgreen2 sentences2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif 2015See id. at 274 , 243 P.2d at 415 . 2 T19 This evolution in the law has occurred in other jurisdictions as well, Seq, eg., In re Fleck's Estate, 261 Iowa 434 , 154 N.W.2d 865, 868 (1967) ("The modern rule, and the one we have adopted, is to construe the whole instrument without reference to the formal divisions in order to effectuate, if possible, the grantor's intent.") (citations omitted); State v. Hess, 684 N.W.2d 414, 423 (Minn.2004) (A court must "read the granting and habendum clauses together 'in order to arrive at the true intention, even to the extent of allowing the habendum to qualif | 1 | 1 |
O'BRIEN v. Village Land Co.green1 sentence2015T23 Based on Mitchell and other authorities cited above, wey, like the district court, determine that the 1950 Deeds unambiguously reserved to the Plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interests the mineral rights in Tracts A-D in the land later conveyed to the Furrow Defendants' predecessor-in-interest, Hubert A. Brown. | 1 24 In so concluding, we necessarily reject the Furrow Defendants' reliance on the distinction between a "granting clause" and a "warranty clause" made in O'Brien v. Village Land Co., 794 P.2d 246, 251 (Colo.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. American Ass'ngreen2 sentences2015Ass'n, 120 Ky. 413 , 86 S.W. 1111, 1112 (1905) ("[Rleservations or exceptions are enforced, although contained in the habendum clause of the deed, as fully as if set out in the granting clause, when on the whole instrument the intention of the parties is sufficient ly expressed to be enforced."); Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123 , 428 P.2d 978, 980-81 (1967) (recognizing that "where a deed is susceptible to alternative construction, the construction most favorable to the grantee will be adopted," but still finding that in light of "the modern rule" the reservation in the habendum at issue was not 2015Ass'n, 120 Ky. 413 , 86 S.W. 1111, 1112 (1905) ("[Rleservations or exceptions are enforced, although contained in the habendum clause of the deed, as fully as if set out in the granting clause, when on the whole instrument the intention of the parties is sufficient ly expressed to be enforced."); Price v. Johnson, 78 N.M. 123 , 428 P.2d 978, 980-81 (1967) (recognizing that "where a deed is susceptible to alternative construction, the construction most favorable to the grantee will be adopted," but still finding that in light of "the modern rule" the reservation in the habendum at issue was not | 1 | 1 |
Carlson v. McCoygreen2 sentences2008Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187, 214 (Colo.1984); Carlson v. McCoy, 193 Colo. 391, 393-94 , 566 P.2d 1073, 1075 (1977). 2008Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187, 214 (Colo.1984); Carlson v. McCoy, 193 Colo. 391, 393-94 , 566 P.2d 1073, 1075 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc.green1 sentence2008Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187, 214 (Colo.1984); Carlson v. McCoy, 193 Colo. 391, 393-94 , 566 P.2d 1073, 1075 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Nos. 97-5735, 97-5736green1 sentence2005As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 177 F.3d 210, 220 (3d Cir.1999), “If there is no final judgment outstanding into which the defense of lack of jurisdiction can merge and proceedings are continuing; res judicata [and collateral estoppel do] not operate to -bar consideration of a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court.” See also In re Marriage of Mallon, supra (noting that the modern rule gives finality substantially greater weight than validity). | 1 | 1 |
Beatty v. Wittekampgreen2 sentences2004E.g., Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla.1960) (noting that "the modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-operating"); Russell, 101 N.E.2d at 291 (stating that "the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing"); Beatty v. Wittekamp, 171 S.C. 326 , 172 S.E. 122, 125 (1933) (declaring that "[t]he general presumption of law is that all constitutional provisions are self-executing"); see generally 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 100 (1998). 2004E.g., Gray v. Bryant, 125 So.2d 846, 851 (Fla.1960) (noting that "the modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-operating"); Russell, 101 N.E.2d at 291 (stating that "the presumption now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing"); Beatty v. Wittekamp, 171 S.C. 326 , 172 S.E. 122, 125 (1933) (declaring that "[t]he general presumption of law is that all constitutional provisions are self-executing"); see generally 16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 100 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bankgreen2 sentences1993Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 375 , 60 S.Ct. 317, 319 , 84 L.Ed. 329, 333 (1939) (“it is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principal of absolute retroactivity cannot be justified.”). 1993Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 375 , 60 S.Ct. 317, 319 , 84 L.Ed. 329, 333 (1939) (“it is manifest from numerous decisions that an all-inclusive statement of a principal of absolute retroactivity cannot be justified.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Moore v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Vladovicgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bradley v. Mann
green
2 sentences1981Bradley v. Mann, 34 Colo.App. 135 , 525 P.2d 492 ; Accord, Mamalis v. Bornovas, 112 N.H. 423 , 297 A.2d 660 . 1981Bradley v. Mann, 34 Colo.App. 135 , 525 P.2d 492 ; Accord, Mamalis v. Bornovas, 112 N.H. 423 , 297 A.2d 660 . | 2 | 1974–1981 |
Kahn v. Herman
neutral
2 sentences1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 . 1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 . | 2 | 1913–1913 |
Miltonvale State Bank v. Kuhnle
neutral
2 sentences1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 . 1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 . | 2 | 1913–1913 |
Lyne v. Sanford
green
2 sentences1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 . 1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 . | 2 | 1913–1913 |
Ogden & Johnson v. Bosse
green
2 sentences1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 . 1913As illustrating the doctrine of idem sonans■ we cite the following instances wherein names have been held to be idem sonans: Bosse and Busse in Ogden et al. v. Bosse, 86 Tex., 336 ; Bubb and Bobb in Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. St., 429; Forris and Farris in Lyne v. Sanford, 82 Tex., 58 ; Herman and Harman in Kahn v. Herman, 3 Ga., 266 ; Johnston and Johnson in Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan., 420 . | 2 | 1913–1913 |
Miller v. Murray
neutral
2 sentences1896Miller et al. v. Murray, 17 Colo. 408 ; Jones, Admr., v. Pearl Mining Co., 20 Colo. 417 . 1896Miller et al. v. Murray, 17 Colo. 408 ; Jones, Admr., v. Pearl Mining Co., 20 Colo. 417 . | 2 | 1896–1896 |
Jones v. Pearl Mining Co.
neutral
2 sentences1896Miller et al. v. Murray, 17 Colo. 408 ; Jones, Admr., v. Pearl Mining Co., 20 Colo. 417 . 1896Miller et al. v. Murray, 17 Colo. 408 ; Jones, Admr., v. Pearl Mining Co., 20 Colo. 417 . | 2 | 1896–1896 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2010The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments demand that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the pre-seribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 . 2010The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments demand that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the pre-seribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Gutierrez
green
2 sentences2009Such a reading is consistent with People v. Gutierrez, 622 P.2d 547 (Colo.1981), where we enumerated the modern standard for motions *711 for new trials based on newly discovered evidence. 2009Such a reading is consistent with People v. Gutierrez, 622 P.2d 547 (Colo.1981), where we enumerated the modern standard for mo tions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Castle Associates v. Schwartz
green
2 sentences2008Castle Assocs. v. Schwartz, 407 N.Y.S.2d at 723 . 12 Castle Associates is the first modern statement of this rule, and it has been followed in numerous jurisdictions. 13 The easement in Castle Associates was expressly created by deed in 1903 for ingress and egress across a piece of property, but the location of the easement was not specifically identified in the conveyance. 2008Castle Assocs. v. Schwartz, 407 N.Y.S.2d at 723 . [12] *1272 Castle Associates is the first modern statement of this rule, and it has been followed in numerous jurisdictions. [13] The easement in Castle Associates was expressly created by deed in 1903 for ingress and egress across a piece of property, but the location of the easement was not specifically identified in the conveyance. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re the Marriage of Mallon
green
1 sentence2005As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 177 F.3d 210, 220 (3d Cir.1999), “If there is no final judgment outstanding into which the defense of lack of jurisdiction can merge and proceedings are continuing; res judicata [and collateral estoppel do] not operate to -bar consideration of a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court.” See also In re Marriage of Mallon, supra (noting that the modern rule gives finality substantially greater weight than validity). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
O'BRIEN v. Plumides
green
2 sentences1994Under this “modern rule,” a client’s discharge of his or her attorney is not considered a breach of contract since “it is a basic term of the contract, implied by law into it by reason of the special relationship between the contracting parties, that the client may terminate the contract at will.” O’Brien v. Plumides, 79 N.C.App. at 161 , 339 S.E.2d at 55 . 1994Under this “modern rule,” a client’s discharge of his or her attorney is not considered a breach of contract since “it is a basic term of the contract, implied by law into it by reason of the special relationship between the contracting parties, that the client may terminate the contract at will.” O’Brien v. Plumides, 79 N.C.App. at 161 , 339 S.E.2d at 55 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Glisan v. Smolenske green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Carpenter v. Donohoe green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Dunphy v. Dunphy green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| Millage v. Churchill green | 1 | 1946–1946 |
| State v. Patterson green | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| State ex rel. Mitchell v. Read neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Knight v. Pottgieser neutral | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Mulvane v. Rude green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Rochester & Charlotte Turnpike Road Co. v. Paviour green | 1 | 1922–1922 |
| Johnson v. Barden green | 1 | 1921–1921 |
| Cary Hardware Co. v. McCarty green | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| People v. Martínez León green | 1 | 1915–1915 |
| State v. Patterson. neutral | 1 | 1914–1914 |
| Anchor Electric Co. v. Hawkes green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Oregon Steam Navigation Co. v. Winsor green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Fisheries Co. v. Lennen neutral | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Harrison v. Glucose Sugar Refining Co. green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Diamond Match Co. v. . Roeber green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| People ex rel. Davis v. Common Council green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Henry v. Hand green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Swigert & Howard v. Tilden green | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.