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.
16 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
IPMC Transportation Co. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Officegreen2 sentences2013Claim Appeals Office, 753 P.2d 803, 804 (Colo.App.1988) (ALJ has wide discretion to control the course of a hearing and to make evidentiary rulings). 2009Claim Appeals Office, 753 P.2d 803, 804 (Colo.App.1988) (ALJ has wide discretion to control the course of a hearing and to make evidentiary rulings). | 2 | 2 |
People Ex Rel. Mbgreen2 sentences2011See People in Interest of M.B., 70 P.3d 618, 625 (Colo.App.2003). 2011See People in Interest of M.B., 70 P.3d 618, 625 (Colo. App.2003). | 2 | 2 |
Paladino v. Adelphi Universitygreen1 sentence2021See Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 1992)(rejecting claims of educational malpractice that ask the court “to evaluate the course of instruction . . . [and] review the 38 soundness of the method of teaching that has been adopted by an educational institution” (quoting Paladino v. Adelphi Univ., 454 N.Y.S.2d 868, 872 (App. Div. 1982))). ¶ 79 Further, we agree with the trial court that CollegeAmerica was not excluded from the purview of the Consumer Act simply because it is an educational institution that is subject to other regulation and oversight. | 1 | 1 |
Kevin Ross v. Creighton Universitygreen1 sentence2021See Ross v. Creighton Univ., 957 F.2d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 1992)(rejecting claims of educational malpractice that ask the court “to evaluate the course of instruction . . . [and] review the 38 soundness of the method of teaching that has been adopted by an educational institution” (quoting Paladino v. Adelphi Univ., 454 N.Y.S.2d 868, 872 (App. Div. 1982))). ¶ 79 Further, we agree with the trial court that CollegeAmerica was not excluded from the purview of the Consumer Act simply because it is an educational institution that is subject to other regulation and oversight. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pricegreen1 sentence2012See People v. Price, 240 P.3d 557 , 561 (Colo.App.2010) ("We review a trial court's competency determination for an abuse of discretion."). 12. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Tonwegreen1 sentence2011See In re Tonwe, 929 A.2d 774, 776-78 (Del.Supr.2007) (holding that Del. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morrowgreen1 sentence1992See People v. Morrow, supra; Restatement (Second) of Agency § 9(3) (1958). | 1 | 1 |
Board of County Commissioners v. Vail Associates, Ltd.green2 sentences1977See Board of County Commissioners v. Vail Associates, 171 Colo. 381 , 468 P.2d 842 (1970) (“It was not the intent of the statute that the judge of the court should preside over the commission proceedings in the same manner as he is required to do in a jury trial.”) Moreover, the statutes only provide for judicial review of such rulings during the course of the hearing when the commission “requestfs] the court to make ruling upon the propriety of the proof or objections of the parties.” Section 38-1-105(2), C.R.S. 1973. 1977See Board of County Commissioners v. Vail Associates, 171 Colo. 381 , 468 P.2d 842 (1970) (“It was not the intent of the statute that the judge of the court should preside over the commission proceedings in the same manner as he is required to do in a jury trial.”) Moreover, the statutes only provide for judicial review of such rulings during the course of the hearing when the commission “requestfs] the court to make ruling upon the propriety of the proof or objections of the parties.” Section 38-1-105(2), C.R.S. 1973. | 1 | 1 |
Dikeou v. People in the Interest of Cassidentigreen2 sentences1963See Dikeou v. People, 95 Colo. 537 , 38 P. (2d) 772 . 1963See Dikeou v. People, 95 Colo. 537 , 38 P. (2d) 772 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Regional Transportation District v. Martin Marietta Corp.
green
1 sentence2013Dist. v. Martin Marietta Corp ., 805 P.2d 1102 , 1104 (Colo.1991) (rejecting a test that would tax a reseller if it "use[d] the item in any fashion"). ¶ 24 Both A.B. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Brooks v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2009Likewise, the Virginia Court of Appeals found that where the trial judge stated in a juror's presence that defense counsel was challenging him for cause and then heard the prosecution's response to the challenge in front of the juror, the procedure "created the possibility of bias in the mind of the juror against the defendant, where bias may not have previously existed." Brooks v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 523 , 484 127, 130 (1997). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence1998Cf. People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230 (Colo.1996) (court observes demeanor and discerns truthfulness of potential jurors); People v. Russo, 713 P.2d 356 (Colo.1986) (resolution of a challenge for cause ultimately turns on court’s assessment of such intangibles as the juror’s credibility and attitude). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Russo
green
1 sentence1998Cf. People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230 (Colo.1996) (court observes demeanor and discerns truthfulness of potential jurors); People v. Russo, 713 P.2d 356 (Colo.1986) (resolution of a challenge for cause ultimately turns on court’s assessment of such intangibles as the juror’s credibility and attitude). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Wilfredo Alvarez Appeal of John A/K/A Jorge Martinez
green
2 sentences1987Alvarez, 519 F.2d at 1046-47 . 4 Indeed, in most cases involving prosecution attempts to use defense-retained psy chiatric experts, courts have afforded protection for the defense expert although in many cases courts have relied on the attorney-client privilege as the basis for their holding. 1987Alvarez, 519 F.2d at 1046-47 . [4] Indeed, in most cases involving prosecution attempts to use defense-retained psychiatric *884 experts, courts have afforded protection for the defense expert although in many cases courts have relied on the attorney-client privilege as the basis for their holding. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Holloway v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences1980He should inform the court of the "specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility that prohibit a lawyer from using perjured testimony or false evidence and from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and other disciplinary rules which require an attorney's withdrawal if he knows that his continued employment will result in the violation of a Disciplinary Rule." Trapp, supra . *715 The trial court may explore the adequacy of trial counsel's representations regarding his grounds for withdrawal, but in the course of this inquiry, the court 1980He should inform the court of the "specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility that prohibit a lawyer from using perjured testimony or false evidence and from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and other disciplinary rules which require an attorney's withdrawal if he knows that his continued employment will result in the violation of a Disciplinary Rule." Trapp, supra . *715 The trial court may explore the adequacy of trial counsel's representations regarding his grounds for withdrawal, but in the course of this inquiry, the court | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Colorado Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
green
2 sentences1966We will comment upon some of those decisions later in this opinion, but it is here observed that as recently as September 13, 1965, in the case of Colorado, Colo., 405 P.2d 682 , this court Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado, Colo., 405 P.2d 682 , this court again reminded the P.U.C. of the concept of regulated monopoly as follows: "It would seem to us that probably the real reason for the Commission's falling into error in the instant case is the fact that even at this comparatively late date it professes to be uncertain as to whether utility regulation of motor carriers in 1966We will comment upon some of those decisions later in this opinion, but it is here observed that as recently as September 13, 1965, in the case of Colorado, Colo., 405 P.2d 682 , this court Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado, Colo., 405 P.2d 682 , this court again reminded the P.U.C. of the concept of regulated monopoly as follows: "It would seem to us that probably the real reason for the Commission's falling into error in the instant case is the fact that even at this comparatively late date it professes to be uncertain as to whether utility regulation of motor carriers in | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.