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 1959–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vincent Joseph COMPOS v. The PEOPLE of the State of Coloradogreen1 sentence2026It has likewise long been settled that a party may lose its right to assert an issue on appellate 50 review "when it has made contrary assertions in the courts below, when it has acquiesced in contrary findings by those courts, or when it has failed to raise such questions in a timely fashion during the litigation." Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 209 (1981); see also Compos v. People, 2021 CO 19 , ¶ 35, 484 P.3d 159, 165 (acknowledging the force of the defendant's argument that a court of appeals division had erred in adopting a new crime exception to Miranda when no party had advoca | 1 | 1 |
Steagald v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026It has likewise long been settled that a party may lose its right to assert an issue on appellate 50 review "when it has made contrary assertions in the courts below, when it has acquiesced in contrary findings by those courts, or when it has failed to raise such questions in a timely fashion during the litigation." Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 209 (1981); see also Compos v. People, 2021 CO 19 , ¶ 35, 484 P.3d 159, 165 (acknowledging the force of the defendant's argument that a court of appeals division had erred in adopting a new crime exception to Miranda when no party had advoca | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Sineneng-Smithgreen2 sentences2021That is, we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.... [A] s a general rule, ‘ [o] ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.’ " ) ( quoting Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375 , 386 , 124 S.Ct. 786 , 157 L.Ed.2d 778 ( 2003 ) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) ) ; accord United States v. Sineneng-Smith , ––– U.S. –––– , 140 S. Ct. 1575 , 1 2021That is, we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.... [A] s a general rule, ‘ [o] ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.’ " ) ( quoting Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375 , 386 , 124 S.Ct. 786 , 157 L.Ed.2d 778 ( 2003 ) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) ) ; accord United States v. Sineneng-Smith , ––– U.S. –––– , 140 S. Ct. 1575 , 1 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Espinozagreen1 sentence2021See id. ; Logan v. Commonwealth , 72 Va.App. 309 , 845 S.E.2d 228 , 234 ( 2020 ) ( " [A] record of service of process [is not] ‘evidence against’ anyone as the framers understood the Confrontation Clause's mandate. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Riveragreen2 sentences2017People v. Rivera, 186 Colo. 24 , 525 P.2d 431, 434 (1974). 2017People v. Rivera, 186 Colo. 24 , 525 P.2d 431, 434 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Kogan v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2015See Kogan , 756 P.2d at 950 . ¶24        The term âcontactâ was not defined in the document setting the conditions of Serraâs bond or in the protection order. | 1 | 1 |
Gallegos v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2003In support of this proposition, Petitioner relies chiefly upon Gallegos v. People , in which this court concluded, "The refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser degrees of the alleged crime is error, requiring the verdict and sentence to be set aside and a new trial granted." 136 Colo. 321, 322 , 316 P.2d 884, 884 (1957). 2003In support of this proposition, Petitioner relies chiefly upon Gallegos v. People , in which this court concluded, "The refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser degrees of the alleged crime is error, requiring the verdict and sentence to be set aside and a new trial granted." 136 Colo. 321, 322 , 316 P.2d 884, 884 (1957). | 1 | 1 |
Bollier v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., City of Englewood v. Hammes, 671 P.2d 947, 953 (Colo.1983); Bollier v. People, 635 P.2d 543, 546 (Colo.1981); People v. Bridges, 620 P.2d 1, 3 (Colo.1980). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bridgesgreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., City of Englewood v. Hammes, 671 P.2d 947, 953 (Colo.1983); Bollier v. People, 635 P.2d 543, 546 (Colo.1981); People v. Bridges, 620 P.2d 1, 3 (Colo.1980). | 1 | 1 |
City of Englewood v. Hammesgreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., City of Englewood v. Hammes, 671 P.2d 947, 953 (Colo.1983); Bollier v. People, 635 P.2d 543, 546 (Colo.1981); People v. Bridges, 620 P.2d 1, 3 (Colo.1980). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Inmangreen1 sentence2001See People v. Inman, 950 P.2d 640 (Colo.App.1997); People v. Cole, supra. Similarly, the trial court did not err in refusing to phrase the issue of causation in terms of whether defendant "fired the shot which caused [the victim's] death." The coroner could not with any certainty tell which wound caused the victim's death, testifying only that the victim died as a result of multiple gunshots to the head. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mathis v. People
green
2 sentences1972As in Mathis v. People, 167 Colo. 504 , 448 P.2d 633 , from a consideration of all of the instructions, we find the jury was adequately instructed concerning the elements of the crime to be proved and the defense of intoxication, and we find no prejudicial error. 1972As in Mathis v. People, 167 Colo. 504 , 448 P.2d 633 , from a consideration of all of the instructions, we find the jury was adequately instructed concerning the elements of the crime to be proved and the defense of intoxication, and we find no prejudicial error. | 2 | 1972–1972 |
Cencor, Inc. v. Tolman
green
1 sentence2026See, e.g., In re Stanley, 2025 CO 51 , ¶ 17 n.3, 576 P.3d 171 ,178 n.3; People v. Smith, 2024 CO 3 , ¶ 18, 541 P.3d 1191 ,1195; CenCor, Inc. v. Tolman, 868 P.2d 396 ,397 n.l (Colo. 1994); Nicoloffv. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Castro v. United States
green
2 sentences2021That is, we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.... [A] s a general rule, ‘ [o] ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.’ " ) ( quoting Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375 , 386 , 124 S.Ct. 786 , 157 L.Ed.2d 778 ( 2003 ) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) ) ; accord United States v. Sineneng-Smith , ––– U.S. –––– , 140 S. Ct. 1575 , 1 2021That is, we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.... [A] s a general rule, ‘ [o] ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.’ " ) ( quoting Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375 , 386 , 124 S.Ct. 786 , 157 L.Ed.2d 778 ( 2003 ) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) ) ; accord United States v. Sineneng-Smith , ––– U.S. –––– , 140 S. Ct. 1575 , 1 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
v. People
green
1 sentence2021That is, we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.... [A] s a general rule, ‘ [o] ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.’ " ) ( quoting Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375 , 386 , 124 S.Ct. 786 , 157 L.Ed.2d 778 ( 2003 ) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) ) ; accord United States v. Sineneng-Smith , ––– U.S. –––– , 140 S. Ct. 1575 , 1 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Armendariz v. People
green
1 sentence2020Laws 422 (adding violation of custody crime to address parental kidnapping). ¶ 10 Consistent with this rule, our supreme court has concluded that “[i]n the absence of a court order granting legal or physical custody,” parents “share[] an equal right to the custody of the[ir] child.” Armendariz, 711 P.2d at 1270 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Henderson
green
1 sentence2011Whether the effect has been to permit multiple convictions, eg., *483 Henderson, 810 P2d 1058 or to prohibit them, e.g., Armintrout, 864 P.2d 576 (finding second degree burglary a lesser-included offense of first degree burglary by categorizing its additional "dwelling" requirement as a sentencing factor rather than an element not found in the greater first degree offense); cf. Garcia, 940 P.2d 357 (reaffirming Armintr-out but permitting the prosecution an instruction on the non-included offense of first degree trespass because the defendant had actual notice of the additional "dwelling" sente | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2011Whether the effect has been to permit multiple convictions, eg., *483 Henderson, 810 P2d 1058 or to prohibit them, e.g., Armintrout, 864 P.2d 576 (finding second degree burglary a lesser-included offense of first degree burglary by categorizing its additional "dwelling" requirement as a sentencing factor rather than an element not found in the greater first degree offense); cf. Garcia, 940 P.2d 357 (reaffirming Armintr-out but permitting the prosecution an instruction on the non-included offense of first degree trespass because the defendant had actual notice of the additional "dwelling" sente | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Armintrout v. People
green
1 sentence2011Whether the effect has been to permit multiple convictions, eg., *483 Henderson, 810 P2d 1058 or to prohibit them, e.g., Armintrout, 864 P.2d 576 (finding second degree burglary a lesser-included offense of first degree burglary by categorizing its additional "dwelling" requirement as a sentencing factor rather than an element not found in the greater first degree offense); cf. Garcia, 940 P.2d 357 (reaffirming Armintr-out but permitting the prosecution an instruction on the non-included offense of first degree trespass because the defendant had actual notice of the additional "dwelling" sente | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Nunez
green
1 sentence2010Nunez, 841 P.2d at 265 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Cole
green
1 sentence2001See People v. Inman, 950 P.2d 640 (Colo.App.1997); People v. Cole, supra. Similarly, the trial court did not err in refusing to phrase the issue of causation in terms of whether defendant "fired the shot which caused [the victim's] death." The coroner could not with any certainty tell which wound caused the victim's death, testifying only that the victim died as a result of multiple gunshots to the head. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Charles Lidge Bolts and Joe Dee Hicks
green
1 sentence1981United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. James R. Pavloski
green
1 sentence1981United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Rice v. Colorado
green
1 sentence1981United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Gonzales v. United States
green
1 sentence1981United States v. Pavloski, 574 F.2d 933 (7th Cir. 1978); United States v. Bolts, 558 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 898 , 99 S.Ct. 262 , 58 L.Ed.2d 246 (1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Sapero v. State Board of Medical Examiners
green
2 sentences1959People v. Lange (1910), 48 Colo. 428 , 110 Pac. 68 ; Sapero v. State Board (1932), 90 Colo. 568 , 11 P. (2d) 555 .” With this conclusion we are in agreement and add that we appreciate the candor and fairness of the Attorney *91 General in so readily acknowledging the sound basic principle involved. 1959People v. Lange (1910), 48 Colo. 428 , 110 Pac. 68 ; Sapero v. State Board (1932), 90 Colo. 568 , 11 P. (2d) 555 .” With this conclusion we are in agreement and add that we appreciate the candor and fairness of the Attorney *91 General in so readily acknowledging the sound basic principle involved. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
People v. Lange
green
1 sentence1959People v. Lange (1910), 48 Colo. 428 , 110 Pac. 68 ; Sapero v. State Board (1932), 90 Colo. 568 , 11 P. (2d) 555 .” With this conclusion we are in agreement and add that we appreciate the candor and fairness of the Attorney *91 General in so readily acknowledging the sound basic principle involved. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.