24 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Novak v. Cravengreen2 sentences2025See Phillips, ¶ 12 (“[T]o preserve a claim for review on appeal, the party claiming error must have supplied the right ground for the request” and cannot change the basis of his argument on appeal from what he advanced below. (quoting Novak v. Craven, 195 P.3d 1115, 1120 (Colo. App. 2008))). ¶ 15 Nonetheless, he now contends that, because Officer McClay did not testify at the hearing, the record does not contain sufficient evidence for the court’s finding. 2025See Phillips v. People, 2019 CO 72, ¶ 12 (“To preserve a claim for review on appeal, the party claiming error must have supplied the right ground for the request.” (quoting Novak v. Craven, 195 P.3d 1115, 1120 (Colo. App. 2008) (alteration omitted))). 2. | 2 | 4 |
Phillips v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2025See Phillips v. People, 2019 CO 72, ¶ 12 (“To preserve a claim for review on appeal, the party claiming error must have supplied the right ground for the request.” (quoting Novak v. Craven, 195 P.3d 1115, 1120 (Colo. App. 2008) (alteration omitted))). 2. 2025See also Phillips v. People, 2019 CO 72, ¶ 12 (“[T]o preserve a claim for review on appeal, the party claiming error must have supplied the right ground for the request.” (citation omitted)); People v. Tallent, 2021 CO 68 , ¶ 12 (reviewing for plain error “[w]hen a party presents a new argument or alters the grounds for an objection on appeal”). | 2 | 2 |
Medema Homes, Inc. v. Lynngreen2 sentences2008See City of Westminster v. Centric-Jones Constructors, 100 P.3d 472, 481 (Colo.App.2003) (holding that a "liquidated damages" clause addressing delay in a construction contract will not be enforced "where [the] delay is due in whole or in part to the fault of the party claiming the clause's benefit" (quoting Medema Homes, Inc. v. Lynn, 647 P.2d 664, 667 (Colo.1982))). 2004A liquidated damages clause addressing delay in a construction contract will not be enforced “where [the] delay is due in whole or in part to the fault of the party claiming the clause’s benefit.” Medema Homes, Inc. v. Lynn, 647 P.2d 664, 667 (Colo.1982). | 2 | 2 |
City of Fort Morgan v. Eastern Colorado Publishing Co.green1 sentence2021Colo. Publ’g Co., 240 P.3d 481, 486 (Colo. App. 2010).5 And second, the party claiming that an exception applies has the burden of showing that the documents in question fall within the claimed exception. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gibsongreen2 sentences2019See People v. McCullough , 56 Cal.4th 589 , 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 , 298 P.3d 860 , 865 (2013) ("Parties may generally challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment for the first time on appeal because they 'necessarily objected' to the sufficiency of the evidence by 'contesting [it] at trial.' ") (quoting People v. Gibson , 27 Cal.App.4th 1466 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 217 , 218 (1994) ). ¶23 Fourth, in our view, principles of stare decisis support de novo review here. 2019See People v. McCullough , 56 Cal.4th 589 , 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 , 298 P.3d 860 , 865 (2013) ("Parties may generally challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment for the first time on appeal because they 'necessarily objected' to the sufficiency of the evidence by 'contesting [it] at trial.' ") (quoting People v. Gibson , 27 Cal.App.4th 1466 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 217 , 218 (1994) ). ¶23 Fourth, in our view, principles of stare decisis support de novo review here. | 1 | 1 |
People v. McCulloughgreen2 sentences2019See People v. McCullough , 56 Cal.4th 589 , 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 , 298 P.3d 860 , 865 (2013) ("Parties may generally challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment for the first time on appeal because they 'necessarily objected' to the sufficiency of the evidence by 'contesting [it] at trial.' ") (quoting People v. Gibson , 27 Cal.App.4th 1466 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 217 , 218 (1994) ). ¶23 Fourth, in our view, principles of stare decisis support de novo review here. 2019See People v. McCullough , 56 Cal.4th 589 , 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 365 , 298 P.3d 860 , 865 (2013) ("Parties may generally challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment for the first time on appeal because they 'necessarily objected' to the sufficiency of the evidence by 'contesting [it] at trial.' ") (quoting People v. Gibson , 27 Cal.App.4th 1466 , 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 217 , 218 (1994) ). ¶23 Fourth, in our view, principles of stare decisis support de novo review here. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Olanogreen2 sentences2018See Olano , 507 U.S. at 735 , 741 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ; Boulies , 690 P.2d at 1255-56 ; see also Burnette , 775 P.2d at 590 (following Boulies and noting that the presumption can be overcome by a showing that "the trial court took extraordinary precautions to ensure that the defendant would not be prejudiced and that under the circumstances of the case, the precautions were adequate to achieve that result"). ¶32 In my view, we should continue to recognize such a rebuttable presumption standard in cases in which a nonstructural trial error defies harmless error review. 2018See Olano , 507 U.S. at 735 , 741 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ; Boulies , 690 P.2d at 1255-56 ; see also Burnette , 775 P.2d at 590 (following Boulies and noting that the presumption can be overcome by a showing that "the trial court took extraordinary precautions to ensure that the defendant would not be prejudiced and that under the circumstances of the case, the precautions were adequate to achieve that result"). ¶32 In my view, we should continue to recognize such a rebuttable presumption standard in cases in which a nonstructural trial error defies harmless error review. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burnettegreen1 sentence2018See Olano , 507 U.S. at 735 , 741 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ; Boulies , 690 P.2d at 1255-56 ; see also Burnette , 775 P.2d at 590 (following Boulies and noting that the presumption can be overcome by a showing that "the trial court took extraordinary precautions to ensure that the defendant would not be prejudiced and that under the circumstances of the case, the precautions were adequate to achieve that result"). ¶32 In my view, we should continue to recognize such a rebuttable presumption standard in cases in which a nonstructural trial error defies harmless error review. | 1 | 1 |
City of Westminster v. Centric-Jones Constructorsgreen1 sentence2008See City of Westminster v. Centric-Jones Constructors, 100 P.3d 472, 481 (Colo.App.2003) (holding that a "liquidated damages" clause addressing delay in a construction contract will not be enforced "where [the] delay is due in whole or in part to the fault of the party claiming the clause's benefit" (quoting Medema Homes, Inc. v. Lynn, 647 P.2d 664, 667 (Colo.1982))). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. United Engineering & Contracting Co.green2 sentences1982See, e.g., United States v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 234 U.S. 236 , 34 S.Ct. 843 , 58 L.Ed. 1294 (1914); L. 1982See, e.g., United States v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 234 U.S. 236 , 34 S.Ct. 843 , 58 L.Ed. 1294 (1914); L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. People
neutral
2 sentences1975We note at the outset that: "The burden is upon the party claiming error was committed to establish from the whole record that a judgment cannot be upheld under the applicable law." Lee v. People, 137 Colo. 465 , 326 P.2d 660 . 1975We note at the outset that: "The burden is upon the party claiming error was committed to establish from the whole record that a judgment cannot be upheld under the applicable law." Lee v. People, 137 Colo. 465 , 326 P.2d 660 . | 3 | 1965–1975 |
Black v. Southwestern Water Conservation District
green
2 sentences2025Black, 74 P.3d at 467 ; see also § 24-72- 204(3)(a)(IV). ¶ 15 “The attorney-client privilege extends only to matters (1) communicated by or to the client in the course of gaining counsel, advice, or direction about the client’s rights or obligations; and (2) under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation that the statements will be treated as confidential.” Bjornsen, ¶ 54. 6 ¶ 16 The burden of establishing the applicability of the attorney- client privilege rests with the party claiming the privilege, and the burden of establishing a waiver rests with the party seeking to overcome 2025Black, 74 P.3d at 467 . | 2 | 2019–2025 |
Danco, Inc. And Benjamin Guiliani, Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee
green
2 sentences2019It follows that "[t]o preserve a claim for review on appeal, the party claiming error must have supplied the right ground for the request." Novak v. Craven , 195 P.3d 1115 , 1120 (Colo. App. 2008) (quoting Danco, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 178 F.3d 8 , 15 (1st Cir. 1999) ). 2011Accordingly, "'[tlo preserve a claim for review on appeal, the party claiming error must have supplied the right ground for the request.'" Novak, 195 P.3d at 1120 (quoting Danco, Inc., 178 F.3d at 15 ). | 2 | 2011–2019 |
Galiger v. Armstrong
neutral
2 sentences1957This followed a similar ruling in Galiger v. Armstrong (1946) 114 Colo. 397 , 165 P. (2d) 1019 . 1957This followed a similar ruling in Galiger v. Armstrong (1946) 114 Colo. 397 , 165 P. (2d) 1019 . | 2 | 1956–1957 |
v. Abad
green
1 sentence2025Standard of Review and Applicable Law ¶ 33 “We review all evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” People v. Abad, 2021 COA 6, ¶ 8 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Alcon v. Spicer
green
1 sentence2023Alcon, 113 P.3d at 742 . ¶35 Whereas the procedure outlined in C.R.C.P. 26(b)(5)(A) and applied in Alcon encourages proper privilege log disclosures, the extensive pre-in camera analysis and findings for which Washington County advocates would incentivize minimalist privilege log disclosures and invite hide-the-ball gamesmanship. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
M.G. ex rel. M.A.G v. Colorado Department of Human Services, Central Registry
green
1 sentence2022Id. 31 ¶ 60 This rule is designed to allow for the protection of privileged information, while at the same time ensuring that the litigants and the court know what, if any, documents have been withheld and the legal and factual basis for withholding them. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Martin v. Star Publishing Company
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Boulies
green
1 sentence2018See Olano , 507 U.S. at 735 , 741 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ; Boulies , 690 P.2d at 1255-56 ; see also Burnette , 775 P.2d at 590 (following Boulies and noting that the presumption can be overcome by a showing that "the trial court took extraordinary precautions to ensure that the defendant would not be prejudiced and that under the circumstances of the case, the precautions were adequate to achieve that result"). ¶32 In my view, we should continue to recognize such a rebuttable presumption standard in cases in which a nonstructural trial error defies harmless error review. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Abbott
green
1 sentence1989CRE 103; People v. Abbott, supra. To demonstrate prejudice, defendant must show that the error of which he complains deprived him of a substantial right or undermined the fairness of the proceedings so as to affect the outcome of the trial. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Niles v. Shinkle
green
2 sentences1957The party claiming error in the trial of any case must, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new trial, and, without such order, only *407 questions presented in such motion will be considered on review.” (Emphasis added.) In Niles v. Shinkle (1949) 119 Colo. 458 , 204 P. (2d) 1077 , this court held that it was proper to strike a motion which violated the above quoted rules and that any further action by the court was a nullity. 1957The party claiming error in the trial of any case must, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new trial, and, without such order, only *407 questions presented in such motion will be considered on review.” (Emphasis added.) In Niles v. Shinkle (1949) 119 Colo. 458 , 204 P. (2d) 1077 , this court held that it was proper to strike a motion which violated the above quoted rules and that any further action by the court was a nullity. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Campbell v. People
green
2 sentences1956Galiger v. Armstrong, 114 Colo. 397 , 165 P. (2d) 1019 ; Campbell, et al v. People, 124 Colo. 8 , 232 P. (2d) 738 ; Boynton, et al. v. Fox Theaters, 121 Colo. 227 , 214 P. (2d) 793 . 1956Galiger v. Armstrong, 114 Colo. 397 , 165 P. (2d) 1019 ; Campbell, et al v. People, 124 Colo. 8 , 232 P. (2d) 738 ; Boynton, et al. v. Fox Theaters, 121 Colo. 227 , 214 P. (2d) 793 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Boynton v. Fox Denver Theaters, Inc.
green
2 sentences1956Galiger v. Armstrong, 114 Colo. 397 , 165 P. (2d) 1019 ; Campbell, et al v. People, 124 Colo. 8 , 232 P. (2d) 738 ; Boynton, et al. v. Fox Theaters, 121 Colo. 227 , 214 P. (2d) 793 . 1956Galiger v. Armstrong, 114 Colo. 397 , 165 P. (2d) 1019 ; Campbell, et al v. People, 124 Colo. 8 , 232 P. (2d) 738 ; Boynton, et al. v. Fox Theaters, 121 Colo. 227 , 214 P. (2d) 793 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
| Colorado State Bank v. Bird neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Fincher v. Edwin M. Bosworth & Co. green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Parrish's Addition v. Reid
neutral
2 sentences1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Denver Tramway Corp. v. Gentry
green
2 sentences1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Daugherty v. People neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Takamine v. Hirschfeld
neutral
2 sentences1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Price v. People
green
2 sentences1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Jones v. Dunlap
green
2 sentences1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Blackmer v. Blackmer
neutral
2 sentences1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Stotts v. Stotts
green
2 sentences1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 1929It is based on our rule 8, which'reads: “The party claiming error in the-trial of any case must, unless' otherwise ordered by the trial court, move that court for a new) trial, and, without such order, only questions presented'in such motion will be considered on review. ’ ’ ■ The following are only-some of the numerous decisions of this court in which the above rule has been invoked and sustained: Blackmer v. Blackmer, 84 Colo. 540 , 272 Pac. 10 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 83 Colo. 368 , 265 Pac. 911 ; Parrish’s Addition v. Reid, 82 Colo. 419 , 260 Pac. 1018 ; Denver Tramway Corporation v. Gentry, 82 | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Keenan v. Colorado Farm Lands Co. neutral | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.