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.
15 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co.green2 sentences2016Life Assurance Co. of Worcester, Mass., 108 F.2d 302, 306 (8th Cir.1940) (subsequently relied on by Conley, 355 U.S. at 45 -46 n. 5, 73 S.Ct. 99 , for its characterization of the "accepted rule")). {12 The question before us today is therefore less one of whether we will abandon the Conley pleading standard in favor of the Twombly/Igbal standard than whether our pleading standard has always represented an attempt to mirror the accepted federal construction of the virtually identical federal pleading rules, rather than to adopt the particular interpretation of the corresponding federal rule tha 2016Life Assurance Co. of Worcester, Mass. , 108 F.2d 302, 306 ( 8th Cir. 1940 ) (subsequently relied on by Conley , 355 U.S. at 45–46 n. 5 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , for its characterization of the “accepted rule” ) ) . ¶12 The question before us today is therefore less one of whether we will abandon the Conley pleading standard in favor of the Twombly /Iqbal standard than whether our pleading standard has always represented an attempt to mirror the accepted federal construction of the virtually identical federal pleading rules, rather than to adopt the particular interpretation of the corresponding federal | 2 | 2 |
Alcon v. Spicergreen2 sentences2013See Alcon v. Spicer, 113 P.3d 735, 741 (Colo. 2005) (when Colorado's rule is modeled after the corresponding federal rule, commentary and case law interpreting the federal rule is persuasive). 2007R.Civ.P. 69 "was intended to establish an effective and efficient means of securing the execution of judgments." United States v. McWhirter, 376 F.2d 102, 106 (5th Cir.1967); see Alcon v. Spicer, 113 P.3d 735, 741 (Colo.2005) (when Colorado's rule is modeled after the corresponding federal rule, commentary and case law interpreting the federal rule is persuasive in interpreting the Colorado rule). | 2 | 2 |
Franklin v. Skelly Oil Co.green1 sentence2023All is the first and best judge of whether tendered evidence meets th[at] standard of trustworthiness and reliability . . .’ and [w]e cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to admit the report.” (quoting Franklin v. Skelly Oil Co., 141 F.2d 568, 572 (10th Cir. 1944))). 91 congressional reports contain some level of political motivation, yet neither CRE 803(8) nor the corresponding federal rule declares such reports per se inadmissible; instead, as the district court explained, a court is at liberty to admit what it deems trustworthy. | 1 | 1 |
Mariani v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2023See Anderson, ¶ 28; see, e.g., Barry, 467 F. Supp. 2d at 101 (admitting report from a Senate investigation); Mariani v. United States, 80 F. Supp. 2d 352, 361 (M.D. | 1 | 1 |
Barry v. TRUSTEES OF INTERN. ASS'Ngreen1 sentence2023See Anderson, ¶ 28; see, e.g., Barry, 467 F. Supp. 2d at 101 (admitting report from a Senate investigation); Mariani v. United States, 80 F. Supp. 2d 352, 361 (M.D. | 1 | 1 |
Leaffer v. Zarlengogreen1 sentence2016See Leaffer v. Zarlengo, 44 P.3d 1072, 1080 (Colo.2002) (federal cases interpreting federal rules provide "highly persuasive guidance" when interpreting identical state rules); Faris v. Rothenberg, 648 P.2d 1089 , 1091 n. 1 (Colo.1982), We see no reason to abandon that philosophy or approach today. 118 As a general matter, except as required by the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution, we are clearly not bound to accept the United States Supreme Court's understanding of language susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, and for various reasons we have, on occasion, deviat | 1 | 1 |
Roosevelt v. Beau Monde Co.green2 sentences2013See, e.g., United States v. City of Hialeah, 899 F.Supp. 603, 611 (S.D.Fla.1994), aff'd, 140 F.3d 968 (11th Cir.1998); In re Oceana Int'l, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 329, 333 (S.D.N.Y.1969) Hartley Pen Co. v. Lindy Pen Co., 16 F.R.D. 141, 153 (S.D.Cal.1954); see also Roosevelt v. Beau Monde Co., 152 Colo. 567, 577 , 384 P.2d 96, 101 (1963) (holding that Colorado's intervention rule, C.R.C.P. 24, is identical to the corresponding federal rule). 2013See, e.g., United States v. City of Hialeah, 899 F.Supp. 603, 611 (S.D.Fla.1994), aff'd, 140 F.3d 968 (11th Cir.1998); In re Oceana Int'l, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 329, 333 (S.D.N.Y.1969) Hartley Pen Co. v. Lindy Pen Co., 16 F.R.D. 141, 153 (S.D.Cal.1954); see also Roosevelt v. Beau Monde Co., 152 Colo. 567, 577 , 384 P.2d 96, 101 (1963) (holding that Colorado's intervention rule, C.R.C.P. 24, is identical to the corresponding federal rule). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. City of Hialeahgreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., United States v. City of Hialeah, 899 F.Supp. 603, 611 (S.D.Fla.1994), aff'd, 140 F.3d 968 (11th Cir.1998); In re Oceana Int'l, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 329, 333 (S.D.N.Y.1969) Hartley Pen Co. v. Lindy Pen Co., 16 F.R.D. 141, 153 (S.D.Cal.1954); see also Roosevelt v. Beau Monde Co., 152 Colo. 567, 577 , 384 P.2d 96, 101 (1963) (holding that Colorado's intervention rule, C.R.C.P. 24, is identical to the corresponding federal rule). | 1 | 1 |
In re Oceana International, Inc.green1 sentence2013See, e.g., United States v. City of Hialeah, 899 F.Supp. 603, 611 (S.D.Fla.1994), aff'd, 140 F.3d 968 (11th Cir.1998); In re Oceana Int'l, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 329, 333 (S.D.N.Y.1969) Hartley Pen Co. v. Lindy Pen Co., 16 F.R.D. 141, 153 (S.D.Cal.1954); see also Roosevelt v. Beau Monde Co., 152 Colo. 567, 577 , 384 P.2d 96, 101 (1963) (holding that Colorado's intervention rule, C.R.C.P. 24, is identical to the corresponding federal rule). | 1 | 1 |
Hartley Pen Co. v. Lindy Pen Co.green1 sentence2013See, e.g., United States v. City of Hialeah, 899 F.Supp. 603, 611 (S.D.Fla.1994), aff'd, 140 F.3d 968 (11th Cir.1998); In re Oceana Int'l, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 329, 333 (S.D.N.Y.1969) Hartley Pen Co. v. Lindy Pen Co., 16 F.R.D. 141, 153 (S.D.Cal.1954); see also Roosevelt v. Beau Monde Co., 152 Colo. 567, 577 , 384 P.2d 96, 101 (1963) (holding that Colorado's intervention rule, C.R.C.P. 24, is identical to the corresponding federal rule). | 1 | 1 |
Garrigan v. Bowengreen1 sentence2013Garrigan v. Bowen, 243 P.3d 231, 235 (Colo.2010). . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. City of Hialeahgreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., United States v. City of Hialeah, 899 F.Supp. 603, 611 (S.D.Fla.1994), aff'd, 140 F.3d 968 (11th Cir.1998); In re Oceana Int'l, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 329, 333 (S.D.N.Y.1969) Hartley Pen Co. v. Lindy Pen Co., 16 F.R.D. 141, 153 (S.D.Cal.1954); see also Roosevelt v. Beau Monde Co., 152 Colo. 567, 577 , 384 P.2d 96, 101 (1963) (holding that Colorado's intervention rule, C.R.C.P. 24, is identical to the corresponding federal rule). | 1 | 1 |
Bruce W. Higley, D.D.S., M.S., P.A. Defined Benefit Annuity Plan v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.green1 sentence2009Higley Defined Benefit Annuity Plan v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 920 P.2d 884, 889 (Colo.App.1996) (Higley ) (when a Colorado rule of procedure is substantially identical to the corresponding federal rule, we may refer to federal decisions interpreting that provision). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. S. T. McWhirter and Betty McWhirtergreen1 sentence2007R.Civ.P. 69 "was intended to establish an effective and efficient means of securing the execution of judgments." United States v. McWhirter, 376 F.2d 102, 106 (5th Cir.1967); see Alcon v. Spicer, 113 P.3d 735, 741 (Colo.2005) (when Colorado's rule is modeled after the corresponding federal rule, commentary and case law interpreting the federal rule is persuasive in interpreting the Colorado rule). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Farrellyellow2 sentences2002See People v. Farrell, 34 P.3d 401, 405-06 (Colo.2001); Stevens, 29 P.3d at 313 . 2002See People v. Farrell, 34 P.3d 401, 405-06 (Colo.2001); Stevens, 29 P.3d at 313 . | 1 | 1 |
Canton Oil v. DIST. COURT, SECOND JUD. DIST.green1 sentence1995It, and the corresponding federal rule, have been described as attempting “to strike a proper balance between the conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and that justice should be done.” Canton Oil Corp. v. District Court, 731 P.2d 687, 694 (Colo.1987), quoting, 11 C.Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2851 at 140 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc.green1 sentence1984Hamilton v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 , 145 (9th Cir.1982); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir.1976); Sox v. Estes Express Lines, 92 F.R.D. 71, 72 (D.S.C.1981); Sherry v. Sherry, 622 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1981); Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc., 608 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Mont.1980); Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc., 205 Kan. 321 , 469 P.2d 272, 277 (1970); Goodman v. Gordon, 103 Ariz. 538 , 447 P.2d 230, 232 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Milton Lecompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc.green1 sentence1984Hamilton v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 , 145 (9th Cir.1982); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir.1976); Sox v. Estes Express Lines, 92 F.R.D. 71, 72 (D.S.C.1981); Sherry v. Sherry, 622 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1981); Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc., 608 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Mont.1980); Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc., 205 Kan. 321 , 469 P.2d 272, 277 (1970); Goodman v. Gordon, 103 Ariz. 538 , 447 P.2d 230, 232 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Goodman v. Gordongreen2 sentences1984Hamilton v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 , 145 (9th Cir.1982); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir.1976); Sox v. Estes Express Lines, 92 F.R.D. 71, 72 (D.S.C.1981); Sherry v. Sherry, 622 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1981); Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc., 608 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Mont.1980); Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc., 205 Kan. 321 , 469 P.2d 272, 277 (1970); Goodman v. Gordon, 103 Ariz. 538 , 447 P.2d 230, 232 (1968). 1984Hamilton v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 , 145 (9th Cir.1982); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir.1976); Sox v. Estes Express Lines, 92 F.R.D. 71, 72 (D.S.C.1981); Sherry v. Sherry, 622 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1981); Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc., 608 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Mont.1980); Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc., 205 Kan. 321 , 469 P.2d 272, 277 (1970); Goodman v. Gordon, 103 Ariz. 538 , 447 P.2d 230, 232 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc.green2 sentences1984Hamilton v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 , 145 (9th Cir.1982); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir.1976); Sox v. Estes Express Lines, 92 F.R.D. 71, 72 (D.S.C.1981); Sherry v. Sherry, 622 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1981); Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc., 608 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Mont.1980); Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc., 205 Kan. 321 , 469 P.2d 272, 277 (1970); Goodman v. Gordon, 103 Ariz. 538 , 447 P.2d 230, 232 (1968). 1984Hamilton v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 , 145 (9th Cir.1982); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir.1976); Sox v. Estes Express Lines, 92 F.R.D. 71, 72 (D.S.C.1981); Sherry v. Sherry, 622 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1981); Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc., 608 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Mont.1980); Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc., 205 Kan. 321 , 469 P.2d 272, 277 (1970); Goodman v. Gordon, 103 Ariz. 538 , 447 P.2d 230, 232 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Sherry v. Sherrygreen1 sentence1984Hamilton v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 , 145 (9th Cir.1982); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir.1976); Sox v. Estes Express Lines, 92 F.R.D. 71, 72 (D.S.C.1981); Sherry v. Sherry, 622 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1981); Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc., 608 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Mont.1980); Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc., 205 Kan. 321 , 469 P.2d 272, 277 (1970); Goodman v. Gordon, 103 Ariz. 538 , 447 P.2d 230, 232 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Sox v. Estes Express Linesgreen1 sentence1984Hamilton v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 , 145 (9th Cir.1982); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir.1976); Sox v. Estes Express Lines, 92 F.R.D. 71, 72 (D.S.C.1981); Sherry v. Sherry, 622 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1981); Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc., 608 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Mont.1980); Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc., 205 Kan. 321 , 469 P.2d 272, 277 (1970); Goodman v. Gordon, 103 Ariz. 538 , 447 P.2d 230, 232 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Conley v. Gibson
red
2 sentences2016Life Assurance Co. of Worcester, Mass., 108 F.2d 302, 306 (8th Cir.1940) (subsequently relied on by Conley, 355 U.S. at 45 -46 n. 5, 73 S.Ct. 99 , for its characterization of the "accepted rule")). {12 The question before us today is therefore less one of whether we will abandon the Conley pleading standard in favor of the Twombly/Igbal standard than whether our pleading standard has always represented an attempt to mirror the accepted federal construction of the virtually identical federal pleading rules, rather than to adopt the particular interpretation of the corresponding federal rule tha 2016Life Assurance Co. of Worcester, Mass. , 108 F.2d 302, 306 ( 8th Cir. 1940 ) (subsequently relied on by Conley , 355 U.S. at 45–46 n. 5 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , for its characterization of the “accepted rule” ) ) . ¶12 The question before us today is therefore less one of whether we will abandon the Conley pleading standard in favor of the Twombly /Iqbal standard than whether our pleading standard has always represented an attempt to mirror the accepted federal construction of the virtually identical federal pleading rules, rather than to adopt the particular interpretation of the corresponding federal | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Tillery v. District Court ex rel. Fifth Judicial District
green
2 sentences1994Because C.R.C.P. 41(a)(2) is “identical to the corresponding federal rule and the rules adopted by several other states,” Tillery, 692 P.2d at 1084 , it will also be helpful to look to the standards applied in cases outside this jurisdiction for guidance. 1992Tillery v. District Court, 692 P.2d 1079 (Colo.1984). | 2 | 1992–1994 |
DCP Midstream, LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
green
2 sentences2022DCP Midstream, LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. , 2013 CO 36 , ¶ 26 , 303 P.3d 1187 , 1193 . 2022DCP Midstream, LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. , 2013 CO 36 , ¶ 26 , 303 P.3d 1187 , 1193 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Faris v. Rothenberg
green
1 sentence2016See Leaffer v. Zarlengo, 44 P.3d 1072, 1080 (Colo.2002) (federal cases interpreting federal rules provide "highly persuasive guidance" when interpreting identical state rules); Faris v. Rothenberg, 648 P.2d 1089 , 1091 n. 1 (Colo.1982), We see no reason to abandon that philosophy or approach today. 118 As a general matter, except as required by the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution, we are clearly not bound to accept the United States Supreme Court's understanding of language susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, and for various reasons we have, on occasion, deviat | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Stevens v. People
yellow
2 sentences2002See People v. Farrell, 34 P.3d 401, 405-06 (Colo.2001); Stevens, 29 P.3d at 313 . 2002See People v. Farrell, 34 P.3d 401, 405-06 (Colo.2001); Stevens, 29 P.3d at 313 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
University of Texas v. Camenisch
green
2 sentences1993University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 , 101 S.Ct. 1830 , 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). 1993University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 , 101 S.Ct. 1830 , 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
James Hamilton, as Administrator of the Estate of Gordon Daniel Hamilton, Deceased v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, Inc.
green
1 sentence1984Hamilton v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143 , 145 (9th Cir.1982); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir.1976); Sox v. Estes Express Lines, 92 F.R.D. 71, 72 (D.S.C.1981); Sherry v. Sherry, 622 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1981); Petritz v. Albertsons, Inc., 608 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Mont.1980); Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc., 205 Kan. 321 , 469 P.2d 272, 277 (1970); Goodman v. Gordon, 103 Ariz. 538 , 447 P.2d 230, 232 (1968). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.