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.
22 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 18 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 |
|---|---|---|
Castillo v. Koppes-Conwaygreen2 sentences2026It is frivolous as argued when the appellant “fail[s] to set forth . . . a coherent assertion of error, supported by legal authority.” Id. (quoting Castillo v. Koppes-Conway, 148 P.3d 289, 292 (Colo. App. 2006)). ¶ 46 We conclude that the portion of father’s appeal concerning the PPO is frivolous as filed. 2026C.A.R. 38(b); Castillo, 148 P.3d at 292 (an appeal is substantially frivolous under section 13-17-102 “when the appellant’s briefs fail to set forth, in a manner consistent with C.A.R. 28, a coherent assertion of error, supported by legal authority”); see also C.A.R. 38(a) (“The appellate court may . . . impose other sanctions it deems appropriate, including attorney fees, for the failure to comply with any of its orders . . . .”). 17 ¶ 40 This court issued an order striking Simmerly’s initial opening brief and expressly limiting his appeal to the November and December orders because any chall | 12 | 20 |
Calvert v. Mayberrygreen2 sentences2026It is frivolous as argued when the appellant “fail[s] to set forth . . . a coherent assertion of error, supported by legal authority.” Id. (quoting Castillo v. Koppes-Conway, 148 P.3d 289, 292 (Colo. App. 2006)). ¶ 46 We conclude that the portion of father’s appeal concerning the PPO is frivolous as filed. 2024See Calvert v. Mayberry, 2019 CO 23, ¶ 45 (An appeal is frivolous if “there are no legitimately appealable issues because the judgment below ‘was so plainly correct and the legal authority contrary to the appellant’s position so clear’” or if “the appellant ‘fail[s] to set forth . . . a coherent assertion of error, supported by legal authority.’” (quoting Castillo v. Koppes-Conway, 148 P.3d 289, 292 (Colo. App. 2006))) (alteration in original). ¶ 26 Baker also asserts that Rincon’s opening brief didn’t comply with the appellate rules requiring identification of the applicable standard of revie | 2 | 5 |
White v. Estate of Soto-Lermagreen1 sentence2025See Mission Denver Co. v. Pierson, 674 P.2d 363, 365 (Colo. 1984) (“Standards for determining whether an appeal is frivolous should be directed toward penalizing egregious conduct without deterring a lawyer from vigorously asserting his client’s rights.”); see also In re Marriage of Boettcher, 2018 COA 34, ¶ 38 (“Fees should be awarded only in clear and unequivocal cases . . . .”), aff’d, 2019 CO 81 . | 1 | 1 |
Mission Denver Co. v. Piersongreen1 sentence2025See Mission Denver Co. v. Pierson, 674 P.2d 363, 365 (Colo. 1984) (“Standards for determining whether an appeal is frivolous should be directed toward penalizing egregious conduct without deterring a lawyer from vigorously asserting his client’s rights.”); see also In re Marriage of Boettcher, 2018 COA 34, ¶ 38 (“Fees should be awarded only in clear and unequivocal cases . . . .”), aff’d, 2019 CO 81 . | 1 | 1 |
In re Marriage of Boettchergreen1 sentence2025See Mission Denver Co. v. Pierson, 674 P.2d 363, 365 (Colo. 1984) (“Standards for determining whether an appeal is frivolous should be directed toward penalizing egregious conduct without deterring a lawyer from vigorously asserting his client’s rights.”); see also In re Marriage of Boettcher, 2018 COA 34, ¶ 38 (“Fees should be awarded only in clear and unequivocal cases . . . .”), aff’d, 2019 CO 81 . | 1 | 1 |
Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green1 sentence2024See Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2013 COA 10, ¶¶ 39-40 ; Castillo v. Koppes-Conway, 148 P.3d 289, 292 (Colo. App. 2006). ¶ 39 Combs’ appeal includes claims that lack any rational justification or coherent assertion of error. | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of S.N.V.green1 sentence2012People in Interest of S.N.V., 284 P.3d 147, 151 (Colo. 129 The district court's order is vacated, and the case is remanded with directions to vacate the magistrate's contempt judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Giguere v. SJS Family Enterprises, Ltd.green1 sentence2012See Giguere v. SJS Family Enters., Ltd., 155 P.3d 462, 474 (Colo.App.2006) ("An appeal lacks substantial justification ... under [section] 18-17-102(4) when the appellant's briefs fail to set forth, in a manner consistent with C.A.R. 28, a coherent assertion of error, supported by legal authority."). 28 We do not address wife's request for appellate attorney fees under section 14-10-119, C.R.S.2011, because that request is more appropriately addressed to the district court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dungaree Realty, Inc. v. United States
green
2 sentences2019Even if there are legitimately appealable issues, an appeal may still be frivolous as argued if the appellant “fail[s] to set forth . . . a coherent assertion of error, supported by legal authority.” Id. ¶46 Both courts below held that issue preclusion barred Calvert from relitigating whether he violated Rule 1.8(a) and that Rule 1.8(a) was an expression of public policy that voided the contract. 2019Even if there are legitimately appealable issues, an appeal may still be frivolous as argued if the appellant "fail[s] to set forth ... a coherent assertion of error, supported by legal authority." Id. ¶46 Both courts below held that issue preclusion barred Calvert from relitigating whether he violated Rule 1.8(a) and that Rule 1.8(a) was an expression of public policy that voided the contract. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.