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 1998–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Roybalgreen2 sentences2018People v. Allen , 885 P.2d 207 , 212 (Colo. 1994). ¶ 54 The mandate rule serves the dual purposes of "protecting against the reargument of settled issues and assuring the adherence of lower courts to the decisions of higher courts." Roybal , 672 P.2d at 1005 . ¶ 55 Here, the mandate in *234 Thompson v. United Securities Alliance, Inc. ( Thompson III ), No. 13CA2037, slip op. at 15 (Colo. App. Oct. 16, 2014) provided: The order is reversed and remanded with instructions to calculate the reasonable costs and fees that Catlin may deduct from the policy limit. 2015Law and Analysis ¶ 58 Under the mandate rule embodied in the law of the case doctrine, “[t]rial courts have no discretion to disregard binding appellate rulings: ‘[t]he law of the case as established by an appellate court must be followed in subsequent proceedings before the trial court.’ ” Id. at 340 (quoting People v. Roybal, 672 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Colo. 1983)). | 4 | 5 |
Hardesty v. Pinogreen2 sentences2022Hardesty v. Pino , 222 P.3d 336, 339 (Colo. App. 2009). 2015Law and Analysis ¶58       Under the mandate rule embodied in the law of the case doctrine, â[t]rial courts have no discretion to disregard binding appellate rulings: â[t]he law of the case as established by an appellate court must be followed in subsequent proceedings before the trial court.ââ Id. at 340 (quoting People v. Roybal , 672 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Colo. 1983)). | 1 | 2 |
Ins. v. Dakota Station IIgreen1 sentence2024Ass’n, 2021 COA 114, ¶ 24 (“Under the mandate rule, ‘[c]onclusions of an appellate court on issues presented to it as well as rulings logically necessary to sustain such conclusions become the law of the case,’ which the trial court must follow on remand.”) (citation omitted). 12 • Because we conclude that the court’s instruction on the previous jury’s findings was reversible error, we need not address Speicher’s claim of cumulative error. • Given our disposition of this appeal, we decline to grant the Ekbergs’ request for appellate attorney fees. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smootsgreen1 sentence2022See People v. Smoots, 2013 COA 152, ¶ 20 , 395 P.3d 53 , 57, aff’d sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. District Court in & for Weld Countygreen2 sentences2018See Super Valu , 906 P.2d at 79 (reasoning that the mandate rule "protects litigants from the expenditure of time and money involved in the reargument of settled issues"). ¶ 28 Second, we would be adding an additional, unnecessary layer to the mandate rule. 2018See Super Valu , 906 P.2d at 79 (reasoning that the mandate rule "protects litigants from the expenditure of time and money involved in the reargument of settled issues"). ¶ 28 Second, we would be adding an additional, unnecessary layer to the mandate rule. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Shreckgreen1 sentence2016See People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68, 76 (Colo. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Role Models America, Inc. v. Gerengreen1 sentence2009The mandate rule has been described as the "more powerful version," Role Models America, Inc. v. Geren, 514 F.3d 1308, 1311 (D.C.Cir.2008), or "the purest form," Cathy Stricklin Krendl, 1B Colo. Prac., Methods of Practice § 25.4, at 346 (5th ed.2004), of the law of the case doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Atasi Corporation v. Seagate Technologygreen1 sentence1998See In re American Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605, 618-19 (5th Cir.1992). “[T]he test does not depend on whether actual confidences were received, but on whether the former and current representation are substantially related.” Atasi Corp. v. Seagate Tech., 847 F.2d 826, 829 (Fed.Cir.1988). *931 In reviewing a district court order regarding attorney disqualification, we employ an abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 1 |
In Re American Airlines, Inc., Amr Corporationgreen1 sentence1998See In re American Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605, 618-19 (5th Cir.1992). “[T]he test does not depend on whether actual confidences were received, but on whether the former and current representation are substantially related.” Atasi Corp. v. Seagate Tech., 847 F.2d 826, 829 (Fed.Cir.1988). *931 In reviewing a district court order regarding attorney disqualification, we employ an abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Catlin Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2026Co. (UK) Ltd., 2018 CO 95, ¶ 22 . ¶ 13 Under the mandate rule, a district court must follow the remand directions and law of the case established by an appellate court. 2026Co. (UK), 2018 CO 95, ¶ 21 . | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Stockdale v. Ellsworth
green
2 sentences2024Id. ¶ 17 Therefore, i n reviewing Curtis’s latest postconviction motion, the postconviction court was required to follow the Curti s II division’s holding that the record supported Curtis’s SVP designation. 2024Id. ¶ 17 Therefore, i n reviewing Curtis’s latest postconviction motion, the postconviction court was required to follow the Curti s II division’s holding that the record supported Curtis’s SVP designation. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Elmo Jesse JOHNSON
green
1 sentence2023Maj. op. ¶ 37 & n.4 (first citing People v. Johnson, 2021 CO 35 , ¶¶ 15–16, 486 P.3d 1154, 1158 ; and then citing Thompson v. Catlin Ins. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2023Maj. op. ¶ 37 & n.4 (first citing People v. Johnson, 2021 CO 35 , ¶¶ 15–16, 486 P.3d 1154, 1158 ; and then citing Thompson v. Catlin Ins. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Southern Cross Ranches v. JBC Agricultural Management
green
1 sentence2021Mgmt., LLC, 2019 COA 58, ¶ 40 . ¶ 24 The second branch, known as the mandate rule, is not discretionary. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People of Aurora Ex Rel. State v. Allen
green
2 sentences2018People v. Allen , 885 P.2d 207 , 212 (Colo. 1994). ¶ 54 The mandate rule serves the dual purposes of "protecting against the reargument of settled issues and assuring the adherence of lower courts to the decisions of higher courts." Roybal , 672 P.2d at 1005 . ¶ 55 Here, the mandate in *234 Thompson v. United Securities Alliance, Inc. ( Thompson III ), No. 13CA2037, slip op. at 15 (Colo. App. Oct. 16, 2014) provided: The order is reversed and remanded with instructions to calculate the reasonable costs and fees that Catlin may deduct from the policy limit. 2018People v. Allen , 885 P.2d 207 , 212 (Colo. 1994). ¶ 54 The mandate rule serves the dual purposes of "protecting against the reargument of settled issues and assuring the adherence of lower courts to the decisions of higher courts." Roybal , 672 P.2d at 1005 . ¶ 55 Here, the mandate in *234 Thompson v. United Securities Alliance, Inc. ( Thompson III ), No. 13CA2037, slip op. at 15 (Colo. App. Oct. 16, 2014) provided: The order is reversed and remanded with instructions to calculate the reasonable costs and fees that Catlin may deduct from the policy limit. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Aardvark Art, Inc. v. Lehigh/Steck-Warlick, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Plaintiff further suggests the binding effect should turn on whether the prior decision was an "evidentiary ruling" or "dismissal." This distinction is inapposite: the mandate rule covers "pronouncement{s] of an appellate court on an issue in a case presented to it," Roybal, 672 P.2d at 1005 , regardless of whether they involve an "evidentiary" ruling or a "dismissal." Plaintiff gleans the distinction from Aardvark Art, Inc. v. Lehigh/Steck-Warlick, Inc., 284 Ill.App.3d 627 , 220 Ill.Dec. 259 , 672 N.E.2d 1271 (1996); and Koch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 274 Or. 499 , 547 P.2d 589 2009Plaintiff further suggests the binding effect should turn on whether the prior decision was an "evidentiary ruling" or "dismissal." This distinction is inapposite: the mandate rule covers "pronouncement{s] of an appellate court on an issue in a case presented to it," Roybal, 672 P.2d at 1005 , regardless of whether they involve an "evidentiary" ruling or a "dismissal." Plaintiff gleans the distinction from Aardvark Art, Inc. v. Lehigh/Steck-Warlick, Inc., 284 Ill.App.3d 627 , 220 Ill.Dec. 259 , 672 N.E.2d 1271 (1996); and Koch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 274 Or. 499 , 547 P.2d 589 | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Koch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company
green
2 sentences2009Plaintiff further suggests the binding effect should turn on whether the prior decision was an "evidentiary ruling" or "dismissal." This distinction is inapposite: the mandate rule covers "pronouncement{s] of an appellate court on an issue in a case presented to it," Roybal, 672 P.2d at 1005 , regardless of whether they involve an "evidentiary" ruling or a "dismissal." Plaintiff gleans the distinction from Aardvark Art, Inc. v. Lehigh/Steck-Warlick, Inc., 284 Ill.App.3d 627 , 220 Ill.Dec. 259 , 672 N.E.2d 1271 (1996); and Koch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 274 Or. 499 , 547 P.2d 589 2009Plaintiff further suggests the binding effect should turn on whether the prior decision was an "evidentiary ruling" or "dismissal." This distinction is inapposite: the mandate rule covers "pronouncement{s] of an appellate court on an issue in a case presented to it," Roybal, 672 P.2d at 1005 , regardless of whether they involve an "evidentiary" ruling or a "dismissal." Plaintiff gleans the distinction from Aardvark Art, Inc. v. Lehigh/Steck-Warlick, Inc., 284 Ill.App.3d 627 , 220 Ill.Dec. 259 , 672 N.E.2d 1271 (1996); and Koch v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 274 Or. 499 , 547 P.2d 589 | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.