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.
18 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Humphrey v. Southwestern Development Co.green2 sentences2000Second, we may hear a moot issue if "the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation." Id. 1996See Humphrey v. Southwestern Development Co., 734 P.2d 637 (Colo.1987) (an issue which otherwise may be moot may be addressed if it is capable of repetition, yet evades review, or is a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation); cf. Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Fulenwider, supra (effect of mootness determination on lower court ruling is equitable question); In re Marriage of Finer, 893 P.2d 1381 (Colo.App.1995) (analyzing mootness determinations). | 1 | 5 |
People v. Blackgreen2 sentences2013However, a court may resolve an otherwise-moot issue on its merits if it is capable of repetition while evading review, involves matters of great public importance, or involves an allegedly recurring constitutional violation. 1 People v. Black, 915 P.2d 1257 , 1259 n.l (Colo.1996). 2013Grossman v. Dean , 80 P.3d 952 , 960 (Colo.App.2003) ; see also People v. McMurrey , 39 P.3d 1221 , 1223 (Colo.App.2001). ¶ 11 However, there are exceptions for "those cases in which an otherwise moot matter is capable of repetition, yet evading review, and those cases involving matters of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation." People v. Black, 915 P.2d 1257 , 1259 n. 1 (Colo.1996) ; see also People in Interest of Ofengand, 183 P.3d 688 , 691 (Colo.App.2008) (electing to resolve the issue of whether respondent validly waived her right to counsel, in part, | 1 | 3 |
Grossman v. Deangreen2 sentences2013Grossman v. Dean , 80 P.3d 952 , 960 (Colo.App.2003) ; see also People v. McMurrey , 39 P.3d 1221 , 1223 (Colo.App.2001). ¶ 11 However, there are exceptions for "those cases in which an otherwise moot matter is capable of repetition, yet evading review, and those cases involving matters of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation." People v. Black, 915 P.2d 1257 , 1259 n. 1 (Colo.1996) ; see also People in Interest of Ofengand, 183 P.3d 688 , 691 (Colo.App.2008) (electing to resolve the issue of whether respondent validly waived her right to counsel, in part, 2013Grossman v. Dean , 80 P.3d 952 , 960 (Colo.App.2003) ; see also People v. McMurrey , 39 P.3d 1221 , 1223 (Colo.App.2001). ¶ 11 However, there are exceptions for "those cases in which an otherwise moot matter is capable of repetition, yet evading review, and those cases involving matters of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation." People v. Black, 915 P.2d 1257 , 1259 n. 1 (Colo.1996) ; see also People in Interest of Ofengand, 183 P.3d 688 , 691 (Colo.App.2008) (electing to resolve the issue of whether respondent validly waived her right to counsel, in part, | 1 | 2 |
Board of the County Commissioners v. Crystal Creek Homeowners' Ass'ngreen2 sentences2009Board of County Comm'rs v. Crystal Creek Homeowners Ass'n, 14 P.3d 325, 345 (Colo.2000). 2002Board of County Comm'rs v. Crystal Creek Homeowners' Ass'n, 14 P.3d 325 (Colo.2000). | 1 | 2 |
People v. McMurreygreen1 sentence2013Grossman v. Dean , 80 P.3d 952 , 960 (Colo.App.2003) ; see also People v. McMurrey , 39 P.3d 1221 , 1223 (Colo.App.2001). ¶ 11 However, there are exceptions for "those cases in which an otherwise moot matter is capable of repetition, yet evading review, and those cases involving matters of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation." People v. Black, 915 P.2d 1257 , 1259 n. 1 (Colo.1996) ; see also People in Interest of Ofengand, 183 P.3d 688 , 691 (Colo.App.2008) (electing to resolve the issue of whether respondent validly waived her right to counsel, in part, | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Ofengandgreen1 sentence2013Grossman v. Dean , 80 P.3d 952 , 960 (Colo.App.2003) ; see also People v. McMurrey , 39 P.3d 1221 , 1223 (Colo.App.2001). ¶ 11 However, there are exceptions for "those cases in which an otherwise moot matter is capable of repetition, yet evading review, and those cases involving matters of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation." People v. Black, 915 P.2d 1257 , 1259 n. 1 (Colo.1996) ; see also People in Interest of Ofengand, 183 P.3d 688 , 691 (Colo.App.2008) (electing to resolve the issue of whether respondent validly waived her right to counsel, in part, | 1 | 1 |
Urevich v. Woodardgreen1 sentence1986These considerations include: whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review, see, e.g., Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983); Goedecke v. Dept. of Insts., 198 Colo. 407, 410 , 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979), and whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation, see, e.g., Parker v. People, 135 Colo. 206 , 309 P.2d 605 (1957); Van De Vegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161 , 55 P.2d 703 (1936); Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Comm’n., 184 Colo. 428 , 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Grattan v. Wilsongreen2 sentences1986Language in cases to the effect that a defendant in an injunction proceeding does the act sought to be enjoined at his peril, see, e.g., Werner v. Norden, 87 Colo. 339, 343 , 287 P. 644, 646 (1930); Grattan v. Wilson, 82 Colo. 239, 243 , 259 P. 6, 8 (1927); Thornton v. Schobe, 79 Colo. 25, 29 , 243 P. 617, 618 (1926), must be read in the context of the culpable behavior of the defendant vis-a-vis the innocent conduct of the plaintiff. 6 . 1986Language in cases to the effect that a defendant in an injunction proceeding does the act sought to be enjoined at his peril, see, e.g., Werner v. Norden, 87 Colo. 339, 343 , 287 P. 644, 646 (1930); Grattan v. Wilson, 82 Colo. 239, 243 , 259 P. 6, 8 (1927); Thornton v. Schobe, 79 Colo. 25, 29 , 243 P. 617, 618 (1926), must be read in the context of the culpable behavior of the defendant vis-a-vis the innocent conduct of the plaintiff. 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Thornton v. Schobegreen2 sentences1986Language in cases to the effect that a defendant in an injunction proceeding does the act sought to be enjoined at his peril, see, e.g., Werner v. Norden, 87 Colo. 339, 343 , 287 P. 644, 646 (1930); Grattan v. Wilson, 82 Colo. 239, 243 , 259 P. 6, 8 (1927); Thornton v. Schobe, 79 Colo. 25, 29 , 243 P. 617, 618 (1926), must be read in the context of the culpable behavior of the defendant vis-a-vis the innocent conduct of the plaintiff. 6 . 1986Language in cases to the effect that a defendant in an injunction proceeding does the act sought to be enjoined at his peril, see, e.g., Werner v. Norden, 87 Colo. 339, 343 , 287 P. 644, 646 (1930); Grattan v. Wilson, 82 Colo. 239, 243 , 259 P. 6, 8 (1927); Thornton v. Schobe, 79 Colo. 25, 29 , 243 P. 617, 618 (1926), must be read in the context of the culpable behavior of the defendant vis-a-vis the innocent conduct of the plaintiff. 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Werner v. Nordengreen2 sentences1986Language in cases to the effect that a defendant in an injunction proceeding does the act sought to be enjoined at his peril, see, e.g., Werner v. Norden, 87 Colo. 339, 343 , 287 P. 644, 646 (1930); Grattan v. Wilson, 82 Colo. 239, 243 , 259 P. 6, 8 (1927); Thornton v. Schobe, 79 Colo. 25, 29 , 243 P. 617, 618 (1926), must be read in the context of the culpable behavior of the defendant vis-a-vis the innocent conduct of the plaintiff. 6 . 1986Language in cases to the effect that a defendant in an injunction proceeding does the act sought to be enjoined at his peril, see, e.g., Werner v. Norden, 87 Colo. 339, 343 , 287 P. 644, 646 (1930); Grattan v. Wilson, 82 Colo. 239, 243 , 259 P. 6, 8 (1927); Thornton v. Schobe, 79 Colo. 25, 29 , 243 P. 617, 618 (1926), must be read in the context of the culpable behavior of the defendant vis-a-vis the innocent conduct of the plaintiff. 6 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
W-470 Concerned Citizens v. W-470 Highway Authority
green
2 sentences2006W-470 Concerned Citizens v. W-470 Highway Auth., supra. But in their briefs, plaintiffs do not argue that either exception applies. 1991W-470 Concerned, Citizens v. W-470 Highway Authority, 809 P.2d 1041 (Colo.App.1990). | 2 | 1991–2006 |
Dempsey v. Romer
green
2 sentences1995Dempsey v. Romer, 825 P.2d 44 (Colo.1992). 1995Dempsey v. Romer, 825 P.2d 44 (Colo.1992). | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Taxpayers Against Congestion v. Regional Transportation District
green
1 sentence2025Id. ¶ 15 Whether an appeal is moot is a question of law that we review de novo. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Devorss
green
1 sentence2014Devorss, 277 P.3d at 833 ; see, e.g., Grossman v. Dean, 80 P.3d 952, 960 (Colo.App.2003) (reviewing the case on the merits because it involved the interpretation of a state constitutional amendment adopted by a ballot initiative concerning the public's ability to petition the government for redress and the ability of representatives to serve their constithents). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Johnson v. Griffin
green
1 sentence2013"An issue may be capable of repetition while evading review even though the chance of recurrence is remote." Johnson v. Griffin , 240 P.3d 404 , 406 (Colo.App.2009). ¶ 12 Here, although he was re-granted parole, defendant is serving an indeterminate period of parole. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re the Marriage of Finer
green
2 sentences1996See Humphrey v. Southwestern Development Co., 734 P.2d 637 (Colo.1987) (an issue which otherwise may be moot may be addressed if it is capable of repetition, yet evades review, or is a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation); cf. Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Fulenwider, supra (effect of mootness determination on lower court ruling is equitable question); In re Marriage of Finer, 893 P.2d 1381 (Colo.App.1995) (analyzing mootness determinations). 1996See Humphrey v. Southwestern Development Co., 734 P.2d 637 (Colo.1987) (an issue which otherwise may be moot may be addressed if it is capable of repetition, yet evades review, or is a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation); cf. Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Fulenwider, supra (effect of mootness determination on lower court ruling is equitable question); In re Marriage of Finer, 893 P.2d 1381 (Colo.App.1995) (analyzing mootness determinations). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Oken v. Hammer
green
2 sentences1996To the extent that we may so exercise our discretion, and in consideration of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, see Oken v. Hammer, 791 P.2d 9 (Colo.App.1990) (a party may be equitably estopped from asserting mootness), under the particular circumstances here, we decline to invoke the mootness doctrine now and choose to resolve the issues presented. 1996To the extent that we may so exercise our discretion, and in consideration of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, see Oken v. Hammer, 791 P.2d 9 (Colo.App.1990) (a party may be equitably estopped from asserting mootness), under the particular circumstances here, we decline to invoke the mootness doctrine now and choose to resolve the issues presented. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Fulenwider
green
2 sentences1996See Humphrey v. Southwestern Development Co., 734 P.2d 637 (Colo.1987) (an issue which otherwise may be moot may be addressed if it is capable of repetition, yet evades review, or is a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation); cf. Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Fulenwider, supra (effect of mootness determination on lower court ruling is equitable question); In re Marriage of Finer, 893 P.2d 1381 (Colo.App.1995) (analyzing mootness determinations). 1996See Humphrey v. Southwestern Development Co., 734 P.2d 637 (Colo.1987) (an issue which otherwise may be moot may be addressed if it is capable of repetition, yet evades review, or is a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation); cf. Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Fulenwider, supra (effect of mootness determination on lower court ruling is equitable question); In re Marriage of Finer, 893 P.2d 1381 (Colo.App.1995) (analyzing mootness determinations). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Zoning Board of Adjustment v. DeVilbiss
green
1 sentence1987Second, we may hear a moot case if “the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation.” Zoning Bd. of Adjustment v. DeVilbiss, 729 P.2d 353 , 356 n. 4 (Colo.1986). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Parker v. People Ex Rel. Woods
green
2 sentences1986These considerations include: whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review, see, e.g., Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983); Goedecke v. Dept. of Insts., 198 Colo. 407, 410 , 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979), and whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation, see, e.g., Parker v. People, 135 Colo. 206 , 309 P.2d 605 (1957); Van De Vegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161 , 55 P.2d 703 (1936); Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Comm’n., 184 Colo. 428 , 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). 5 . 1986These considerations include: whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review, see, e.g., Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983); Goedecke v. Dept. of Insts., 198 Colo. 407, 410 , 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979), and whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation, see, e.g., Parker v. People, 135 Colo. 206 , 309 P.2d 605 (1957); Van De Vegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161 , 55 P.2d 703 (1936); Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Comm’n., 184 Colo. 428 , 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). 5 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Goedecke v. State, Dept. of Institutions
green
2 sentences1986These considerations include: whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review, see, e.g., Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983); Goedecke v. Dept. of Insts., 198 Colo. 407, 410 , 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979), and whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation, see, e.g., Parker v. People, 135 Colo. 206 , 309 P.2d 605 (1957); Van De Vegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161 , 55 P.2d 703 (1936); Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Comm’n., 184 Colo. 428 , 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). 5 . 1986These considerations include: whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review, see, e.g., Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983); Goedecke v. Dept. of Insts., 198 Colo. 407, 410 , 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979), and whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation, see, e.g., Parker v. People, 135 Colo. 206 , 309 P.2d 605 (1957); Van De Vegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161 , 55 P.2d 703 (1936); Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Comm’n., 184 Colo. 428 , 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). 5 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Van DeVegt v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences1986These considerations include: whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review, see, e.g., Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983); Goedecke v. Dept. of Insts., 198 Colo. 407, 410 , 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979), and whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation, see, e.g., Parker v. People, 135 Colo. 206 , 309 P.2d 605 (1957); Van De Vegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161 , 55 P.2d 703 (1936); Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Comm’n., 184 Colo. 428 , 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). 5 . 1986These considerations include: whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review, see, e.g., Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983); Goedecke v. Dept. of Insts., 198 Colo. 407, 410 , 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979), and whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation, see, e.g., Parker v. People, 135 Colo. 206 , 309 P.2d 605 (1957); Van De Vegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161 , 55 P.2d 703 (1936); Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Comm’n., 184 Colo. 428 , 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). 5 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Commission
green
2 sentences1986These considerations include: whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review, see, e.g., Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983); Goedecke v. Dept. of Insts., 198 Colo. 407, 410 , 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979), and whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation, see, e.g., Parker v. People, 135 Colo. 206 , 309 P.2d 605 (1957); Van De Vegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161 , 55 P.2d 703 (1936); Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Comm’n., 184 Colo. 428 , 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). 5 . 1986These considerations include: whether the matter is capable of repetition yet evading review, see, e.g., Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo.1983); Goedecke v. Dept. of Insts., 198 Colo. 407, 410 , 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979), and whether the matter involves a question of great public importance or an allegedly recurring constitutional violation, see, e.g., Parker v. People, 135 Colo. 206 , 309 P.2d 605 (1957); Van De Vegt v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 98 Colo. 161 , 55 P.2d 703 (1936); Bestway Disposal v. Public Utilities Comm’n., 184 Colo. 428 , 520 P.2d 1039 (1974). 5 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |