18 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 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. Marujogreen2 sentences2025In Marujo , we enumerated a nonexclusive list of factors to consider when assessing whether "a reasonable, innocent person would not feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter." 192 P.3d at 1007 ( quoting People v. Jackson , 39 P.3d 1174, 1184 ( Colo. 2002 ) ) . 2025In Marujo , we enumerated a nonexclusive list of factors to consider when assessing whether "a reasonable, innocent person would not feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter." 192 P.3d at 1007 (quoting People v. Jackson , 39 P.3d 1174, 1184 (Colo. 2002)). | 1 | 2 |
Crumb v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2026See Crumb v. People, 230 P.3d 726, 730 (Colo. 2010) (the court should consider a nonexclusive list of factors, including whether the prosecution would be prejudiced by the withdrawal of the guilty plea, whether the defendant promptly moved to withdraw the guilty plea, and 3 whether the defendant has shown that justice will be subverted if the motion is denied). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2025In Marujo , we enumerated a nonexclusive list of factors to consider when assessing whether "a reasonable, innocent person would not feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter." 192 P.3d at 1007 ( quoting People v. Jackson , 39 P.3d 1174, 1184 ( Colo. 2002 ) ) . 2025In Marujo , we enumerated a nonexclusive list of factors to consider when assessing whether "a reasonable, innocent person would not feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter." 192 P.3d at 1007 (quoting People v. Jackson , 39 P.3d 1174, 1184 (Colo. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Ford v. Eichergreen2 sentences2025Est. of Ford v. Eicher, 250 P.3d 262, 267 (Colo. 2011). ¶ 36 In determining the reliability of an expert’s methodology under the first element of this test, a trial court may consider the following nonexclusive list of factors: 15 (1) Whether the technique can and has been tested; (2) Whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) The scientific technique’s known or potential rate of error, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation; (4) Whether the technique has been generally accepted; (5) The relationship of t 2025Id. at 267-68 ; see also Shreck, 22 P.3d at 77-78 . ¶ 37 The court must consider the totality of the circumstances and is not restricted to these specific factors. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Shreckgreen1 sentence2025Id. at 267-68 ; see also Shreck, 22 P.3d at 77-78 . ¶ 37 The court must consider the totality of the circumstances and is not restricted to these specific factors. | 1 | 1 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green1 sentence2019The trial court may consider a multitude of factors in its consideration.5 Here, the evidence is akin to that proffered in 5 The supreme court emphasized that a trial court may consider the nonexclusive list of factors set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993): (1) whether the technique can and has been tested; (2) whether the theory or 31 Han Tak Lee and Behn. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mathenygreen1 sentence2017People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453, 465-66 (Colo. 2002) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ramadongreen1 sentence2013Medina, 25 P.3d at 1222 -23 (citing to and applying factors established in GenNings, 808 P.2d at 844 ); Ramadon, ¶ 20, 314 P.3d 836, 841-42 (citing Medina, 25 P.8d at 1222-28). 112 Next, courts determine whether the coercive police conduct played a significant role in inducing the defendant to make subsequent inculpatory statements. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dossgreen1 sentence2012See § 18-25-129(1) (allowing admission of "[aln out-of-court statement made by a child ... not otherwise admissible by statute or court rule which provides an exception to the objection of hearsay"); People v. Bolton, 859 P.2d 303, 309 (Colo.App.1993)("If the child's hearsay statement is specifically admissible under another statute or court rule which provides an exception to the hearsay rule, then [the Child Hearsay Statute] is not applicable." (emphasis in original)); People v. Doss, 782 P.2d 1198, 1200 (Colo.App.1989)(holding child victim's statements admissible as nonhear-say,; "since the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boltongreen1 sentence2012See § 18-25-129(1) (allowing admission of "[aln out-of-court statement made by a child ... not otherwise admissible by statute or court rule which provides an exception to the objection of hearsay"); People v. Bolton, 859 P.2d 303, 309 (Colo.App.1993)("If the child's hearsay statement is specifically admissible under another statute or court rule which provides an exception to the hearsay rule, then [the Child Hearsay Statute] is not applicable." (emphasis in original)); People v. Doss, 782 P.2d 1198, 1200 (Colo.App.1989)(holding child victim's statements admissible as nonhear-say,; "since the | 1 | 1 |
In re Marriage of Naekelgreen1 sentence2011In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370, 1878-79 (Colo.1997); see also In re Talco, Ltd., 769 P.2d 468, 475 (Colo.1989) ("Section 18-17-108 contains a nonexclusive list of factors that a court must consider in determining whether to assess attorney fees."); In re Marriage of Naekel, 181 P.3d 1177, 1179 (Colo.App.2008) (when a court awards fees under section 13-17-102, it must specifically set forth its reasons, considering the section 18-17-108 factors). | 1 | 1 |
Talco, Ltd. v. Danielsongreen1 sentence2011In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370, 1878-79 (Colo.1997); see also In re Talco, Ltd., 769 P.2d 468, 475 (Colo.1989) ("Section 18-17-108 contains a nonexclusive list of factors that a court must consider in determining whether to assess attorney fees."); In re Marriage of Naekel, 181 P.3d 1177, 1179 (Colo.App.2008) (when a court awards fees under section 13-17-102, it must specifically set forth its reasons, considering the section 18-17-108 factors). | 1 | 1 |
In re Marriage of Aldrichgreen1 sentence2011In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370, 1878-79 (Colo.1997); see also In re Talco, Ltd., 769 P.2d 468, 475 (Colo.1989) ("Section 18-17-108 contains a nonexclusive list of factors that a court must consider in determining whether to assess attorney fees."); In re Marriage of Naekel, 181 P.3d 1177, 1179 (Colo.App.2008) (when a court awards fees under section 13-17-102, it must specifically set forth its reasons, considering the section 18-17-108 factors). | 1 | 1 |
Zaal v. Stategreen2 sentences2009A nonexclusive list of factors the court should consider includes: "(1) the nature of the information sought, (2) the relationship between this information and the issue in dispute, and (3) the harm that may result from disclosure." Id. (citing Zaal v. State, 326 Md. 54 , 602 A.2d 1247, 1261-62 (1992)). 2009A nonexclusive list of factors the court should consider includes: "(1) the nature of the information sought, (2) the relationship between this information and the issue in dispute, and (3) the harm that may result from disclosure." Id. (citing Zaal v. State, 326 Md. 54 , 602 A.2d 1247, 1261-62 (1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Helen G. Bonfils Foundation v. Denver Post Employees Stock Trustgreen1 sentence2009See Higley, 920 P.2d at 891 (evaluating a proposed settlement *949 is a fact-specific inquiry requiring the balane-ing of the relevant factors) (citing Bonfils, 674 P.2d at 999 ); see also Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Bruce W. Higley, D.D.S., M.S., P.A. Defined Benefit Annuity Plan v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.green1 sentence2009See Higley, 920 P.2d at 891 (evaluating a proposed settlement *949 is a fact-specific inquiry requiring the balane-ing of the relevant factors) (citing Bonfils, 674 P.2d at 999 ); see also Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clousegreen2 sentences2007Id. 2007In People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d at 441-42 , the supreme court established a nonexclusive list of the factors that could constitute justifiable excuse or excusable neglect, which included “the extent to which a defendant having reason to question the constitutionality of a conviction investigates its validity and takes advantage of avenues of relief that are available to him,” “the extent of time between the date of conviction and the defendant’s challenge,” and “the effect that the passage of ... time has [had] on the State’s ability to defend against the challenge.” In People v. Clouse, 74 P. | 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 v. Medina
green
2 sentences2016Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Medina , 25 P.3d at 1222-23 ). ¶ 22 Finally, [w]hen coercion produces a series of statements, a court need not parse and dissect them to determine which statements may or may not be inculpatory. 2013Medina, 25 P.3d at 1222 -23 (citing to and applying factors established in GenNings, 808 P.2d at 844 ); Ramadon, ¶ 20, 314 P.3d 836, 841-42 (citing Medina, 25 P.8d at 1222-28). 112 Next, courts determine whether the coercive police conduct played a significant role in inducing the defendant to make subsequent inculpatory statements. | 3 | 2013–2016 |
People v. Zadran
green
2 sentences2016Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Medina , 25 P.3d at 1222-23 ). ¶ 22 Finally, [w]hen coercion produces a series of statements, a court need not parse and dissect them to determine which statements may or may not be inculpatory. 2014Id. 137 In determining whether police conduct was coercive, courts look to the totality of the cireumstances surrounding the interrogation and consider the following nonexclusive list of factors: (1) whether the defendant was in custody; (2) whether the defendant was free to leave; (3) whether the defendant was aware of the situation; (4) whether the police read Miranda rights to the defendant; (5) whether the defendant understood and waived Miranda rights; (6) whether the defendant had an opportunity to confer with counsel or anyone else prior to or during the interrogation; (7) whether the s | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Colorado v. Connelly
green
1 sentence2025We review both 8 a “defendant’s ability to resist coercive pressures and the nature of the police conduct, using a nonexclusive list of factors when making a voluntariness determination.” Id. ¶ 19 Berumen asserts that he made his statements involuntarily because Corporals Maize and Timme coerced him into answering their questions and he had no ability to resist their coercive pressure. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Farmers Insurance Gr. v. District Court of SEC. JD
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 896-97 (citing Estep, 753 P.2d at 1248 ). ¶ 14 Based on consideration of these factors and our review of the record, we conclude that good cause exists to accept Sharrett’s notice of appeal as timely. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Estep v. People
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 896-97 (citing Estep, 753 P.2d at 1248 ). ¶ 14 Based on consideration of these factors and our review of the record, we conclude that good cause exists to accept Sharrett’s notice of appeal as timely. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Mendenhall
green
2 sentences2018"As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification." United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544 , 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). ¶ 10 In assessing whether "a reasonable, innocent person would not feel free to decline the officer's request for information or otherwise terminate" an encounter with a police officer, we have enumerated a nonexclusive list of factors that courts mi 2018"As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification." United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544 , 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). ¶ 10 In assessing whether "a reasonable, innocent person would not feel free to decline the officer's request for information or otherwise terminate" an encounter with a police officer, we have enumerated a nonexclusive list of factors that courts mi | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Gennings
green
1 sentence2013Medina, 25 P.3d at 1222 -23 (citing to and applying factors established in GenNings, 808 P.2d at 844 ); Ramadon, ¶ 20, 314 P.3d 836, 841-42 (citing Medina, 25 P.8d at 1222-28). 112 Next, courts determine whether the coercive police conduct played a significant role in inducing the defendant to make subsequent inculpatory statements. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Bachofer
green
1 sentence2009A nonexclusive list of factors the court should consider includes: "(1) the nature of the information sought, (2) the relationship between this information and the issue in dispute, and (3) the harm that may result from disclosure." Id. (citing Zaal v. State, 326 Md. 54 , 602 A.2d 1247, 1261-62 (1992)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Wiedemer
green
1 sentence2007In People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d at 441-42 , the supreme court established a nonexclusive list of the factors that could constitute justifiable excuse or excusable neglect, which included “the extent to which a defendant having reason to question the constitutionality of a conviction investigates its validity and takes advantage of avenues of relief that are available to him,” “the extent of time between the date of conviction and the defendant’s challenge,” and “the effect that the passage of ... time has [had] on the State’s ability to defend against the challenge.” In People v. Clouse, 74 P. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon
green
1 sentence2005In Taco Bell, we formulated a nonexclusive list of factors courts ought to consider when determining whether a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty of care. 744 P.2d at 46 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.