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.
23 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Interrogatory Propounded by Romer on House Bill No. 1353green2 sentences1996In In re House Bill No. 1353, 738 P.2d 371, 373 (Colo.1987), we determined that various sections of House Bill No. 1353 related to numerous and diverse subjects and therefore violated the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills. 1996In In re House Bill No. 1353, 738 P.2d 371, 373 (Colo.1987), we determined that various sections of House Bill No. 1353 related to numerous and diverse subjects and therefore violated the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills. | 8 | 8 |
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary With Regard to a Proposed Petition for an Amendment to the Constitution of the State Adding Section 2 to Article VIIgreen2 sentences1996Section 1-40-106.5(3) directs the Board to "apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and ... follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills." In order to violate the single-subject requirement, the text of the measure must "relate[ ] to more than one subject and [have] at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other." In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary Regarding Petition Procedures, 900 P.2d 104, 109 (Colo.1995) (hereafter Pe 1996Section 1-40-106.5(3) directs the Board to “apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and ... follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills.” In order to violate the single-subject requirement, the text of the measure must “relate[ ] to more than one subject and [have] at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.” In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary Regarding Petition Procedures, 900 P.2d 104, 109 (Colo.1995) (hereafter Pe | 5 | 5 |
Matter of Title, Ballot Title, Sub. Cl.green2 sentences1996Section 1-40-106.5(3) directs the Board to "apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and ... follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills." In order to violate the single-subject requirement, the text of the measure must "relate[ ] to more than one subject and [have] at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other." In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary Regarding Petition Procedures, 900 P.2d 104, 109 (Colo.1995) (hereafter Pe 1996Section 1-40-106.5(3) directs the Board to “apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and ... follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills.” In order to violate the single-subject requirement, the text of the measure must “relate[ ] to more than one subject and [have] at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.” In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary Regarding Petition Procedures, 900 P.2d 104, 109 (Colo.1995) (hereafter Pe | 4 | 4 |
In Re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary With Regard to a Proposed Petition for an Amendment to the Constitution of the State Adding Subsection (10) to Section 20 of Article Xgreen2 sentences2006See In re Amend Tabor 25, 900 P.2d 121, 125 (Colo.1995); In re Petition Procedures, 900 P.2d 104, 109 (Colo.1995); In re "Public Rights in Waters II", 898 P.2d 1076 , 1079 (Colo.1995). . 2006Id. at 128-29. | 4 | 4 |
Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 3 v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2016In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2013–2014 #76, 2014 CO 52, ¶ 32 , 333 P.3d 76, 85 ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1997–1998 #84, 961 P.2d 456, 458 (Colo. 1998). ¶14 Second, the single subject requirement is intended “to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters” caused by the inadvertent passage of a surreptitious provision “coiled up in the folds” of a complex initiative. § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(II); In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2001–2002 #43, 46 P.3d 438, 442 (Colo. 2002). ¶15 To satisfy t 2014Thus, "the subject matter of an initiative must be necessarily and properly connected rather than disconnected or incongruous." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 No. 3, 2012 CO 25 , T 9, 274 P.3d 562, 565 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Outcelt v. Brucegreen2 sentences2016In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2018-2014 #76, 2014 CO 52 , T 32, 333 P.3d 76, 85 ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1997-1998 #84, 961 P.2d 456, 458 (Colo.1998). 1114 Second, the single subject requirement is intended "to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters" caused by the inadvertent passage of a surreptitious provision "coiled up in the folds" of a complex initiative, § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(I1); In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2001-2002 #48, 46 P.8d 438, 442 (Colo.2002). {15 To satisfy th 2016In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2013–2014 #76, 2014 CO 52, ¶ 32 , 333 P.3d 76, 85 ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1997–1998 #84, 961 P.2d 456, 458 (Colo. 1998). ¶14 Second, the single subject requirement is intended “to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters” caused by the inadvertent passage of a surreptitious provision “coiled up in the folds” of a complex initiative. § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(II); In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2001–2002 #43, 46 P.3d 438, 442 (Colo. 2002). ¶15 To satisfy t | 2 | 2 |
Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1999-2000 25 v. Brucegreen2 sentences2000In In *495 re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 #25, 974 P.2d 458, 460-63 (Colo.1999), we explained the origins and history of the single-subject requirement. 2000In In re Proposed Initiative for 1999-2000 # 25, 974 P2d 458, 460-62 (Colo.1999), we explained the origins and history of the single-subject requirement. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Proposed Ballot Initiativegreen2 sentences1996See also In re Proposed Ballot Initiative on Parental Rights, 913 P.2d 1127, 1139 (Colo.1996) (initiative did not violate the constitutional single-subject requirement even though it concerned parents' right to control their children in four different areas). 1996See also In re Proposed Ballot Initiative on Parental Rights, 913 P.2d 1127, 1189 (Colo.1996) (initiative did not violate the constitutional single-subject requirement even though it concerned parents’ right to control their children in four different areas). | 2 | 2 |
Cordero v. Leahygreen2 sentences2019See id. 2017In reviewing Title Board decisions, “we employ all legitimate presumptions in favor of the propriety of the Board’s actions.” In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90, 2014 CO 63, ¶ 7 , 328 P.3d 155, 158 . | 1 | 2 |
In Re Proposed Initiative 1996-4green2 sentences2006Section 1-40-106.5(3) provides that "the initiative title setting review board created in section 1-40-106 should apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and should follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills." See In re Proposed Initiative 1996-4, 916 P.2d 528, 532 (Colo.1996). . 2006Section 1-40-106.5(3) provides that "the initiative title setting review board created in section 1-40-106 should apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and should follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills.” See In re Proposed Initiative 1996-4, 916 P.2d 528 , 532 (Colo.1996). . | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. Polhillgreen1 sentence2016In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2013–2014 #76, 2014 CO 52, ¶ 32 , 333 P.3d 76, 85 ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1997–1998 #84, 961 P.2d 456, 458 (Colo. 1998). ¶14 Second, the single subject requirement is intended “to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters” caused by the inadvertent passage of a surreptitious provision “coiled up in the folds” of a complex initiative. § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(II); In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2001–2002 #43, 46 P.3d 438, 442 (Colo. 2002). ¶15 To satisfy t | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Title, Submission Clause for 2009-2010 91green1 sentence2014See In re Proposed Initiative for 2009-2010 # 91, 235 P.3d 1071 , 1076 But, like the constitutional single subject requirement for bills passed by the General Assembly, the single subject limitation applicable to initiatives prevents the proponents from combining multiple subjects to attract a "yes" vote from voters who might vote "no" on one or more of the subjects if they were proposed separately. | 1 | 1 |
Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 45 v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2014In re Proposed Initiative for 2011-2012 # 45, 274 P.3d 576, 579-80 (Colo.2012). | 1 | 1 |
Catron v. Board of County Commissionersgreen1 sentence2008This is in addition to forbidding "the treatment of incongruous subjects in the same measure [to avoid] securing the enactment of measures that could not be carried upon their merits." § To this end, the prohibition against multiple subjects "prevents the proponents of an initiative from joining multiple subjects into a single initiative in the hope of attracting support from various factions which may have different or conflicting interests." In re Proposed Initiative "Public Rights in Waters II, 898 P.2d at 1079; see also Catron v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 18 Colo. 553, 557 , 33 P. 513 , 514 ( | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. Elder v. Sours
green
2 sentences1996Section 1-40-106.5(3) directs the Board to "apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and ... follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills." In order to violate the single-subject requirement, the text of the measure must "relate[ ] to more than one subject and [have] at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other." In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary Regarding Petition Procedures, 900 P.2d 104, 109 (Colo.1995) (hereafter Pe 1996Section 1-40-106.5(3) directs the Board to “apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and ... follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills.” In order to violate the single-subject requirement, the text of the measure must “relate[ ] to more than one subject and [have] at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other.” In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary Regarding Petition Procedures, 900 P.2d 104, 109 (Colo.1995) (hereafter Pe | 3 | 1995–1996 |
In re Senate Resolution No. 4
green
2 sentences1996NOTES [1] Section 1-40-106.5(3) provides that "the initiative title setting review board created in section 1-40-106 should apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and should follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills." In In re Senate Resolution No. 4, 54 Colo. 262, 270 , 130 P. 333 , 336 (1913), we stated that "[a]n act repealing an act is a measure, and, as the general assembly is not deprived of the right to enact any measure, it clearly has the power to repeal any statute law, however adopted o 1996Section 1-40-106.5(3) provides that "the initiative title setting review board created in section 1^10-106 should apply judicial decisions construing the constitutional single-subject requirement for bills and should follow the same rules employed by the general assembly in considering titles for bills.” In In re Senate Resolution No. 4, 54 Colo. 262, 270 , 130 P. 333 , 336 (1913), we stated that “[a]n act repealing an act is a measure, and, as the general assembly is not deprived of the right to enact any measure, it clearly has the power to repeal any statute law, however adopted or passed.” | 2 | 1996–1996 |
In Re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary With Regard to a Proposed Petition for an Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado Adding Section 2 to Article VII
green
2 sentences1996The Initiative is distinguishable from the measure we upheld in In re Proposed Petition for an Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado Adding Section 2 to Article VII (Petitions), 907 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1995). 1996The Initiative is distinguishable from the measure we upheld in In re Proposed Petition for an Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado Adding Section 2 to Article VII (Petitions), 907 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1995). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Hayes v. Spalding
green
2 sentences2016In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2018-2014 #76, 2014 CO 52 , T 32, 333 P.3d 76, 85 ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1997-1998 #84, 961 P.2d 456, 458 (Colo.1998). 1114 Second, the single subject requirement is intended "to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters" caused by the inadvertent passage of a surreptitious provision "coiled up in the folds" of a complex initiative, § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(I1); In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2001-2002 #48, 46 P.8d 438, 442 (Colo.2002). {15 To satisfy th 2016In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for 2018-2014 #76, 2014 CO 52 , T 32, 333 P.3d 76, 85 ; In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary for 1997-1998 #84, 961 P.2d 456, 458 (Colo.1998). 1114 Second, the single subject requirement is intended "to prevent surprise and fraud from being practiced upon voters" caused by the inadvertent passage of a surreptitious provision "coiled up in the folds" of a complex initiative, § 1-40-106.5(1)(e)(I1); In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for Proposed Initiative 2001-2002 #48, 46 P.8d 438, 442 (Colo.2002). {15 To satisfy th | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Outcelt v. Bruce
green
1 sentence1999Initiative # 40 is virtually identical to Initiative #38, which we reviewed in In re Proposed Initiative No. 38, 977 P.2d 849 (Colo.1999). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.