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 1897–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
V Bar Ranch LLC v. Cottengreen2 sentences2016As we have previously made clear, "[a]n appropriator may not enlarge an appropriation, even if the enlarged use does not go beyond the decreed amount, without establishing all of the elements of an independent appropriation . . . ." V Bar Ranch, 233 P.3d at 1209 (emphasis added). 2016As we have previously made clear, "[a]n appropriator may not enlarge an appropriation, even if the enlarged use does not go beyond the decreed amount, without establishing all of the elements of an independent appropriation . . . ." V Bar Ranch, 233 P.3d at 1209 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Twin Lakes Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2009Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. Twin Lakes Associates, Inc., 770 P.2d 1231, 1238 (Colo.1989) ("Any attempt by the former owner to claim a priority relating back to the priority date of the former right is of no avail."). 2009Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. Twin Lakes: Associates, Inc., 770 P.2d 1231, 1238 (Colo.1989) ("Any attempt by the former owner to claim a priority relating back to the priority date of the former right is of no avail."). | 1 | 2 |
Archuleta v. Gomezgreen1 sentence2012Archuleta v. Gomez, 200 P.3d at 337, 342, 345 . ¶ 9 Quantification of the use Gomez and Archuleta actually made of the deeded interests in dispute is required because the mature limit, seope, and measure of a water right is not equivalent to the flow of water diverted (typically expressed in cubic feet per second (e.f.s.)) but, rather, is the amount of water needed and consumed annually in making beneficial use of the water-in this ease, for crop production (typically quantified by number of acre-feet). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pool v. Wedemeyer & Schulte
neutral
2 sentences1897The contract or consent of the owner need not be stated with the precision necessary in pleading; but facts must be stated sufficiently to connect the owner with the claim for a lieu.” See, also, Keller v. Houlihan, 32 Minn. 486 ; McGeauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 408 ; Pool v. Wedemeyer, 56 Tex. 287 . 1897The contract or consent of the owner need not be stated with the precision necessary in pleading; but facts must be stated sufficiently to connect the owner with the claim for a lieu.” See, also, Keller v. Houlihan, 32 Minn. 486 ; McGeauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 408 ; Pool v. Wedemeyer, 56 Tex. 287 . | 2 | 1897–1897 |
Keller v. Houlihan
neutral
2 sentences1897The contract or consent of the owner need not be stated with the precision necessary in pleading; but facts must be stated sufficiently to connect the owner with the claim for a lieu.” See, also, Keller v. Houlihan, 32 Minn. 486 ; McGeauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 408 ; Pool v. Wedemeyer, 56 Tex. 287 . 1897The contract or consent of the owner need not be stated with the precision necessary in pleading; but facts must be stated sufficiently to connect the owner with the claim for a lieu.” See, also, Keller v. Houlihan, 32 Minn. 486 ; McGeauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 408 ; Pool v. Wedemeyer, 56 Tex. 287 . | 2 | 1897–1897 |
McGlauflin v. Beeden
neutral
2 sentences1897The contract or consent of the owner need not be stated with the precision necessary in pleading; but facts must be stated sufficiently to connect the owner with the claim for a lieu.” See, also, Keller v. Houlihan, 32 Minn. 486 ; McGeauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 408 ; Pool v. Wedemeyer, 56 Tex. 287 . 1897The contract or consent of the owner need not be stated with the precision necessary in pleading; but facts must be stated sufficiently to connect the owner with the claim for a lieu.” See, also, Keller v. Houlihan, 32 Minn. 486 ; McGeauflin v. Beeden, 41 Minn. 408 ; Pool v. Wedemeyer, 56 Tex. 287 . | 2 | 1897–1897 |
Rominger v. Squires
green
1 sentence2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Board of Assessment Appeals v. Valley Country Club
green
1 sentence1992If a protest was not filed, then the new owner may challenge the value; even though the new owner may have held title for only part of the assessment year, (emphasis added) See Board of Assessment Appeals v. Country Club, 792 P.2d 299 (Colo.1990) (it is appropriate for court to give deference to the contemporaneous construction of a statute by the agency charged with its administration). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Fulton Irrigating Ditch Co.
green
2 sentences1989Farmers, 108 Colo. at 486 , 120 P.2d at 199 . 1989Farmers, 108 Colo. at 486 , 120 P.2d at 199 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Willson
green
2 sentences1988After noting that the Liquor Code authorized the Department of Revenue to make rules “necessary for the proper regulation and control of the sale of alcohol” and that such regulations “may cover practices ‘unduly designed to increase the consumption of alcoholic beverages,’ ” 187 Colo. at 144 , 528 P.2d at 1316 , we concluded: Analysis of the legislative scheme of the Liquor Code indicates that the regulation in question is clearly within the power delegated to the Department of Revenue. 1988After noting that the Liquor Code authorized the Department of Revenue to make rules “necessary for the proper regulation and control of the sale of alcohol” and that such regulations “may cover practices ‘unduly designed to increase the consumption of alcoholic beverages,’ ” 187 Colo. at 144 , 528 P.2d at 1316 , we concluded: Analysis of the legislative scheme of the Liquor Code indicates that the regulation in question is clearly within the power delegated to the Department of Revenue. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Largo Corp. v. Crespin
red
1 sentence1987Cf. Largo Corp. v. Crespin, 727 P.2d 1098 (Colo.1986). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Webber v. Wannemaker
neutral
1 sentence1927Webber v. Wannemaker, 39 Colo. 425, 433 , 89 Pac. 780 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Koch v. Story
green
1 sentence1923Koch v. Story, 47 Colo. 335 , 107 Pac. 1093 . | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Bauman v. Ross
green
2 sentences1917If this hearing is afforded at some stage of the proceedings, he is given the opportunity to be heard which the fundamental law contemplates.” (Citing Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548 , 42 L. 1917If this hearing is afforded at some stage of the proceedings, he is given the opportunity to be heard which the fundamental law contemplates.” (Citing Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548 , 42 L. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Doherty v. Morris
green
1 sentence1905This court has decided that labor performed by the owner of a claim in constructing a wagon road, a small part of which was within the boundary of the claim, for the purpose of better developing the claim, may be treated as a compliance with the law relating to annual assessments thereon. — Dougherty v. Morrison, 17 Colo. 105 . | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Walrath v. Champion Min. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1903In the Walrath case, supra, which was twice before the circuit court of appeal's ( 63 Fed. 552 ; 72 Fed. 978 ) and once before the supreme court of the United States, there are some expressions in the opinions of the circuit court of appeals from which, taken alone, it might be inferred that under facts like those here present, the owner of a claim would have extra lateral rights in the discovery vein even beyond the point where, on its strike, it leaves the side line, and that the bounding planes, within which such rights are to be exercised, must be drawn through the two end lines. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
Walrath v. Champion Min. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1903In the Walrath case, supra, which was twice before the circuit court of appeal's ( 63 Fed. 552 ; 72 Fed. 978 ) and once before the supreme court of the United States, there are some expressions in the opinions of the circuit court of appeals from which, taken alone, it might be inferred that under facts like those here present, the owner of a claim would have extra lateral rights in the discovery vein even beyond the point where, on its strike, it leaves the side line, and that the bounding planes, within which such rights are to be exercised, must be drawn through the two end lines. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.