18 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1904–2025 6 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 Lambrixgreen2 sentences2024Haas v. Commonwealth , 721 S.E.2d 479 , 482 (Va. 2012) (footnote omitted) ; see also In re Lambrix , 624 F.3d 1355, 1365 (11th Cir. 2010) (concluding that a recantation was “exceeding unreliable” because it was made twenty years after the witness testified against the defendant) (citation omitted); Christian v. Frank , 595 F.3d 10 76 , 1084 n.11 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that a recantation was “especially unreliable” because it was made more than a decade after the witness identified the defendant as the perpetrator ). ¶ 35 Second, there is no indication in the record that Davis made the sta 2024Haas v. Commonwealth , 721 S.E.2d 479 , 482 (Va. 2012) (footnote omitted) ; see also In re Lambrix , 624 F.3d 1355, 1365 (11th Cir. 2010) (concluding that a recantation was “exceeding unreliable” because it was made twenty years after the witness testified against the defendant) (citation omitted); Christian v. Frank , 595 F.3d 10 76 , 1084 n.11 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that a recantation was “especially unreliable” because it was made more than a decade after the witness identified the defendant as the perpetrator ). ¶ 35 Second, there is no indication in the record that Davis made the sta | 2 | 2 |
People v. Garciagreen2 sentences2024See People v. Garcia, 2012 COA 79, ¶ 62 (noting that appellate courts may affirm a district court’s evidentiary rulings on any ground supported by the record, even if not articulated or even considered by the district court); cf. Pernell, ¶¶ 35-37 (holding that, although the district court erred by admitting the statements as excited utterances, reversal was not required because they were admissible as prior consistent statements to rehabilitate a witness’s credibility). ¶ 19 Hall’s theory of the case — which put the victim’s credibility at the heart of the issues to be decided at trial — was 2024See People v. Garcia, 2012 COA 79, ¶ 62 (noting that appellate courts may affirm a district court’s evidentiary rulings on any ground supported by the record, even if not articulated or even considered by the district court); cf. Pernell, ¶¶ 35-37 (holding that, although the district court erred by admitting the statements as excited utterances, reversal was not required because they were admissible as prior consistent statements to rehabilitate a witness’s credibility). ¶ 19 Hall’s theory of the case — which put the victim’s credibility at the heart of the issues to be decided at trial — was | 2 | 2 |
People v. Boykinsgreen1 sentence2025See People v. Boykins, 140 P.3d 87, 95 (Colo. App. 2005) (“In review for plain error, the defendant has the burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice.”). ¶ 36 Indeed, he does not develop any argument as to how the lack of a cautionary instruction undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2022See People v. Collins, 250 P.3d 668, 678 (Colo. App. 2010)(“[A] prosecutor has considerable latitude in replying to opposing counsel’s argument . . . .”). | 1 | 1 |
Michel v. Front Range Land & Livestock Co.green2 sentences1988See Michel v. Front Range Land & Livestock Co., 200 Colo. 104, 106 , 612 P.2d 1128, 1129 (1980) (filing of map and statement insufficient to perfect water right; such right can be determined only through adjudication); § 147-4-6, 1953 C.R.S. (“Nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent a proper adjudication of rights in accordance with existing statutes governing such adjudication”). 1988See Michel v. Front Range Land & Livestock Co., 200 Colo. 104, 106 , 612 P.2d 1128, 1129 (1980) (filing of map and statement insufficient to perfect water right; such right can be determined only through adjudication); § 147-4-6, 1953 C.R.S. (“Nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent a proper adjudication of rights in accordance with existing statutes governing such adjudication”). | 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. Samson
green
2 sentences2015Prosecutors "may comment on the absence of evidence to support a defendant's contentions." People v. Samson, 2012 COA 167, ¶ 31 , 302 P.3d 311 . 2015Prosecutors "may comment on the absence of evidence to support a defendant's contentions." People v. Samson, 2012 COA 167, ¶ 31 , 302 P.3d 311 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Kerber
green
1 sentence2005In People v. Kerber, supra, 64 P.3d at 936 , a division of this court held: Because the testimony of the ... witnesses was contradictory and in some respects irreconcilable, it was proper for the prosecutor to highlight for the jury inconsistencies in the statements of defense witnesses. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Oldsen v. People
green
1 sentence1998In addition, the prosecution’s argument conflicts with the established rule that “[t]he prosecution, as the proponent of the ... hearsay statements, ha[s] the burden to establish the foundation for admitting the statements under an exception to the hearsay rule.” Oldsen v. People, 732 P.2d 1132 , 1137 n. 7 (Colo.1986). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Leonardo v. People
green
1 sentence1994Leonardo v. People, 728 P.2d 1252 (Colo.1986). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Oldsen
green
1 sentence1986People in Interest of R.L., 660 P.2d 26 (Colo.App.1983); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Young Life Campaign, Inc., 42 Colo.App. 298 , 600 P.2d 79 (1979). [8] The court of appeals, in affirming the judgment of conviction, decided that our opinion in W.C.L. v. People, 685 P.2d 176 (Colo.1984), was not controlling in this case because in W.C.L. we "[o]mitted ... any ruling on whether the statements to the doctor were admissible under the medical exception to the hearsay rule...." 697 P.2d at 789 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
US Fidelity & Guaranty v. YOUNG LIFE CAMPAIGN
green
2 sentences1986People in Interest of R.L., 660 P.2d 26 (Colo.App.1983); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Young Life Campaign, Inc., 42 Colo. App. 298 , 600 P.2d 79 (1979). . 1986People in Interest of R.L., 660 P.2d 26 (Colo.App.1983); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Young Life Campaign, Inc., 42 Colo. App. 298 , 600 P.2d 79 (1979). . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
W.C.L. v. People
green
1 sentence1986People in Interest of R.L., 660 P.2d 26 (Colo.App.1983); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Young Life Campaign, Inc., 42 Colo.App. 298 , 600 P.2d 79 (1979). [8] The court of appeals, in affirming the judgment of conviction, decided that our opinion in W.C.L. v. People, 685 P.2d 176 (Colo.1984), was not controlling in this case because in W.C.L. we "[o]mitted ... any ruling on whether the statements to the doctor were admissible under the medical exception to the hearsay rule...." 697 P.2d at 789 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People in Interest of RL
green
2 sentences1986People in Interest of R.L., 660 P.2d 26 (Colo.App.1983); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Young Life Campaign, Inc., 42 Colo. App. 298 , 600 P.2d 79 (1979). . 1986People in Interest of R.L., 660 P.2d 26 (Colo.App.1983); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Young Life Campaign, Inc., 42 Colo.App. 298 , 600 P.2d 79 (1979). [8] The court of appeals, in affirming the judgment of conviction, decided that our opinion in W.C.L. v. People, 685 P.2d 176 (Colo.1984), was not controlling in this case because in W.C.L. we "[o]mitted ... any ruling on whether the statements to the doctor were admissible under the medical exception to the hearsay rule...." 697 P.2d at 789 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Gayton v. Department of Highways
green
2 sentences1970Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Biegert, 165 Colo. 78 , 438 P.2d 506 ; Gayton v. Colorado, 149 Colo. 72 , 367 P.2d 899 ; Dillinger v. North Sterling, 135 Colo. 100 , 308 P.2d 608 ; Stapp v. Carb-Ice Corp., 122 Colo. 526 , 224 P.2d 935 . 1970Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Biegert, 165 Colo. 78 , 438 P.2d 506 ; Gayton v. Colorado, 149 Colo. 72 , 367 P.2d 899 ; Dillinger v. North Sterling, 135 Colo. 100 , 308 P.2d 608 ; Stapp v. Carb-Ice Corp., 122 Colo. 526 , 224 P.2d 935 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Stapp v. Carb-Ice Corp.
green
2 sentences1970Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Biegert, 165 Colo. 78 , 438 P.2d 506 ; Gayton v. Colorado, 149 Colo. 72 , 367 P.2d 899 ; Dillinger v. North Sterling, 135 Colo. 100 , 308 P.2d 608 ; Stapp v. Carb-Ice Corp., 122 Colo. 526 , 224 P.2d 935 . 1970Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Biegert, 165 Colo. 78 , 438 P.2d 506 ; Gayton v. Colorado, 149 Colo. 72 , 367 P.2d 899 ; Dillinger v. North Sterling, 135 Colo. 100 , 308 P.2d 608 ; Stapp v. Carb-Ice Corp., 122 Colo. 526 , 224 P.2d 935 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Dillinger v. North Sterling Irrigation District
green
2 sentences1970Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Biegert, 165 Colo. 78 , 438 P.2d 506 ; Gayton v. Colorado, 149 Colo. 72 , 367 P.2d 899 ; Dillinger v. North Sterling, 135 Colo. 100 , 308 P.2d 608 ; Stapp v. Carb-Ice Corp., 122 Colo. 526 , 224 P.2d 935 . 1970Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Biegert, 165 Colo. 78 , 438 P.2d 506 ; Gayton v. Colorado, 149 Colo. 72 , 367 P.2d 899 ; Dillinger v. North Sterling, 135 Colo. 100 , 308 P.2d 608 ; Stapp v. Carb-Ice Corp., 122 Colo. 526 , 224 P.2d 935 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Colorado Nat. Bank of Denver v. FE Biegert Co., Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1970Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Biegert, 165 Colo. 78 , 438 P.2d 506 ; Gayton v. Colorado, 149 Colo. 72 , 367 P.2d 899 ; Dillinger v. North Sterling, 135 Colo. 100 , 308 P.2d 608 ; Stapp v. Carb-Ice Corp., 122 Colo. 526 , 224 P.2d 935 . 1970Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Biegert, 165 Colo. 78 , 438 P.2d 506 ; Gayton v. Colorado, 149 Colo. 72 , 367 P.2d 899 ; Dillinger v. North Sterling, 135 Colo. 100 , 308 P.2d 608 ; Stapp v. Carb-Ice Corp., 122 Colo. 526 , 224 P.2d 935 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
New Mercer Ditch Co. v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence1910If, on the other hand, the decrees of 1889 be conditional, this is a procedure in which the .completed appropriations may be ascertained, and the vested rights of plaintiffs protected. \ Whether or not a decree adjudicating water rights is conditional, necessarily depends upon the terms of the decree itself; yet the pleadings or statements of claim upon which the decree is based may be considered along with the decree, in ascertaining its meaning .—New Mercer Ditch Co. v. Armstrong, supra. In this case, the original statements of claim are not in evidence, but the agreed statement of facts, an | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Zipperian v. People
neutral
1 sentence1910Whether, from all the circumstances under which the state- • ment was made, it satisfactorily appears that it was made under a sense of impending death, is a question exclusively for the court.” —Zipperian v. People, 33 Colo. 134 , is a case quite in point in favor of the rulings below. ■The foregoing statements of the rule governing ' the admission of dying declarations are, generally ''speaking, sanctioned by the courts of this country. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
McLure v. Koen
green
2 sentences1909If we look to the statements of claim made by each, we find the decree is not in harmony with any of them, and reasonable diligence would call for the further investigation looking to the foundation of title to any priority, namely, the actual application of the water to the land for' a beneficial use, coupled with the intent to so appropriate it and thus secure title, and we think, as was stated in the case of McLure et al. v. Koen, 25 Colo. 284 (waiving the question of the original filings): “The open and notorious possession and user of water from an irrigation canal through lateral ditches 1909Oral agreements concerning priorities and title to water rights followed with its change of possession and application by the claimant have heretofore been held valid by this court, also that part performance will take it out of the statute of frauds and equity will enforce the right thus .acquired.—Schilling et al. v. Rominger, 4 Colo. 104 ; McLure v. Koen, 25 Colo. 284 . | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Hittson v. Browne
neutral
1 sentence1904The provision, therefore, of the statutes prohibiting unlicensed persons from practicing law in this state, as well as the case of Hitson v. Brown, 3 Colo. 304 , have no application. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.