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.
14 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gandiagagreen2 sentences2026Similarly, the defense is unavailable if the attempt “fails because of unanticipated difficulties in carrying out the criminal plan at the precise time and place intended.” People v. Gandiaga, 70 P.3d 523, 528 (Colo. App. 2002) (quoting 2 Wayne R. 2012See People v. Gandiaga, 70 P.3d 523, 528 (Colo.App.2002) (finding that the facts of the case did not support an abandonment defense). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Scialabbagreen2 sentences2012See also People v. Traubert, 625 P.2d 991, 992 (Colo.1981) (deciding that a defendant should not have been granted a motion for judgment of acquittal based on his affirmative defense of abandonment because the People had presented sufficient evidence to raise a question for the jury); People v. Scialabba, 55 P.3d 207, 210 (Colo.App.2002) (abandonment is not available as an affirmative defense to tampering with a witness once the defendant attempted to influence a witness because the charged crime was complete by the attempt); People v. Nicholas, 950 P.2d 634, 637 (Colo.App.1997) rev'd on other 2004Id. at 210 . | 1 | 2 |
Dph v. Jlbgreen1 sentence2025“The abandonment inquiry focuses on whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the parent’s intent during the twelve months preceding the commencement of the adoption proceeding was to abandon the child.” D.P.H. v. J.L.B., 260 P.3d 320, 321 (Colo. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Feiger, Collison & Killmer v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2014Feiger, Collison & Killmer v. Jones, 926 P.2d 1244, 1251 (Colo.1996); Western Fire Truck, Inc. v. Emergency One, Inc., 134 P.3d 570, 577 (Colo.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
Western Fire Truck, Inc. v. Emergency One, Inc.green1 sentence2014Feiger, Collison & Killmer v. Jones, 926 P.2d 1244, 1251 (Colo.1996); Western Fire Truck, Inc. v. Emergency One, Inc., 134 P.3d 570, 577 (Colo.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Traubertgreen1 sentence2012See also People v. Traubert, 625 P.2d 991, 992 (Colo.1981) (deciding that a defendant should not have been granted a motion for judgment of acquittal based on his affirmative defense of abandonment because the People had presented sufficient evidence to raise a question for the jury); People v. Scialabba, 55 P.3d 207, 210 (Colo.App.2002) (abandonment is not available as an affirmative defense to tampering with a witness once the defendant attempted to influence a witness because the charged crime was complete by the attempt); People v. Nicholas, 950 P.2d 634, 637 (Colo.App.1997) rev'd on other | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2012See also People v. Traubert, 625 P.2d 991, 992 (Colo.1981) (deciding that a defendant should not have been granted a motion for judgment of acquittal based on his affirmative defense of abandonment because the People had presented sufficient evidence to raise a question for the jury); People v. Scialabba, 55 P.3d 207, 210 (Colo.App.2002) (abandonment is not available as an affirmative defense to tampering with a witness once the defendant attempted to influence a witness because the charged crime was complete by the attempt); People v. Nicholas, 950 P.2d 634, 637 (Colo.App.1997) rev'd on other 2012To address that issue, we look to section 18-1-407, C.R.S. (2011). other grounds by Nicholas v. People, 978 P.2d 1213 (Colo.1999) (finding that the facts of the case did not support an abandonment defense); Johnson, 585 P.2d at 307-08 (finding that the evidence supported the theory of abandonment, and therefore, an instruction on the affirmative defense of abandonment should have been given). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nicholasgreen1 sentence2012See also People v. Traubert, 625 P.2d 991, 992 (Colo.1981) (deciding that a defendant should not have been granted a motion for judgment of acquittal based on his affirmative defense of abandonment because the People had presented sufficient evidence to raise a question for the jury); People v. Scialabba, 55 P.3d 207, 210 (Colo.App.2002) (abandonment is not available as an affirmative defense to tampering with a witness once the defendant attempted to influence a witness because the charged crime was complete by the attempt); People v. Nicholas, 950 P.2d 634, 637 (Colo.App.1997) rev'd on other | 1 | 1 |
Webster v. Lomasgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Webster *348 v. Lomas, 112 Colo. 74, 76-77 , 145 P.2d 978, 979 (1944) (upholding the trial court's finding that the adverse possessor had beneficially used the water through a ditch it built to the detriment of the original water right holder, who "abandoned" his structure). [6] Based on the record before us, we conclude that Gomez has not met his burden of proof for adverse possession because he offered no evidence that he made actual beneficial consumptive use of all or any portion of the Archuleta water rights. 2009See, e.g., Webster *348 v. Lomas, 112 Colo. 74, 76-77 , 145 P.2d 978, 979 (1944) (upholding the trial court's finding that the adverse possessor had beneficially used the water through a ditch it built to the detriment of the original water right holder, who "abandoned" his structure). [6] Based on the record before us, we conclude that Gomez has not met his burden of proof for adverse possession because he offered no evidence that he made actual beneficial consumptive use of all or any portion of the Archuleta water rights. | 1 | 1 |
Martini v. Smithgreen1 sentence2002See Martini v. Smith, supra (if vacation not effected, court should conduct an abandonment analysis); Alexander v. McClellan, 56 *407 P.3d 102 (Colo.App.2002)(holding that vacation resolution and board minutes do not establish abandonment as a matter of law); see also § 30-28-106@8)(@)(V), C.R.S.2002 (master plans may provide for the "acceptance, widening, ... vacation, abandonment, [or] modification" of public ways). | 1 | 1 |
Benson v. Burgessgreen2 sentences2002See Benson v. Burgess, 192 Colo. 556, 560 , 561 P.2d 11, 14 (Colo.1977) (where resume failed to provide adequate notice of applicant's position, which became apparent only upon action by the water official, appellant's failure to protest was due to mistake, inadvertence, or exeusa-ble neglect). 2002See Benson v. Burgess, 192 Colo. 556, 560 , 561 P.2d 11, 14 (Colo.1977) (where resume failed to provide adequate notice of applicant's position, which became apparent only upon action by the water official, appellant's failure to protest was due to mistake, inadvertence, or exeusa-ble neglect). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lessliegreen1 sentence2002See People v. Lesslie, 24 P.3d 22, 24-25 (Colo.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Uhl v. McEndaffergreen1 sentence2002But see Uhl v. McEndaffer, 128 Colo. 69 , 225 P.2d 839 (1950)(using phrase "abandonment or vacation"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
O'Shaughnessy v. People
green
2 sentences2026We conclude that the district court did not err. ¶ 27 To receive an abandonment instruction, the defendant must present “some credible evidence,” O’Shaughnessy v. People, 2012 CO 9, ¶ 6 , that he “abandon[ed] his effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevent[ed] its commission . . . under circumstances manifesting the complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal intent.” Id. at ¶ 8 (quoting § 18-2-101(3)). ¶ 28 However, “mere withdrawal — particularly when faced with resistance by the victim — before completing the murder . . . is 11 insufficient evidence of abandonment.” Id. at ¶ 20. 2026We conclude that the district court did not err. ¶ 27 To receive an abandonment instruction, the defendant must present “some credible evidence,” O’Shaughnessy v. People, 2012 CO 9, ¶ 6 , that he “abandon[ed] his effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevent[ed] its commission . . . under circumstances manifesting the complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal intent.” Id. at ¶ 8 (quoting § 18-2-101(3)). ¶ 28 However, “mere withdrawal — particularly when faced with resistance by the victim — before completing the murder . . . is 11 insufficient evidence of abandonment.” Id. at ¶ 20. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
SL GROUP, LLC v. Go West Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011While "excusable neglect" is not defined by statute, "it is clearly an element of a statutory scheme designed ... to increase the likelihood that parties actually affected by the adjudication will have a meaningful opportunity to be heard, despite the statute's abandonment of a requirement of personal service." Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Taylor v. Briggs, Adm'r
green
2 sentences1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Downing v. Smith
green
2 sentences1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson’s Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat’l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Razatos v. Daniels & Fisher Stores Co.
neutral
2 sentences1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Falbo v. United States National Bank
green
2 sentences1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Koscove v. Koscove
neutral
2 sentences1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. Sun Production Co.
green
2 sentences1989Co. v. Sun Productions Co., 721 P.2d 1198 (Colo.App.1986) (construction of deed is matter of law with paramount purpose of ascertaining intent of parties). 1989Co. v. Sun Productions Co., 721 P.2d 1198 (Colo.App.1986) (construction of deed is matter of law with paramount purpose of ascertaining intent of parties). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
In Re Estate of Dewson
green
2 sentences1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson’s Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat’l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Allard Cattle Co. v. Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
neutral
2 sentences1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 1989Co., 187 Colo. 1 , 530 P.2d 503 (1974) (intent is the very essence of an abandonment claim); In re Dewson's Estate, 181 Colo. 189 , 509 P.2d 311 (1973) (cardinal rule in construing wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator); Falbo v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, 116 Colo. 508 , 181 P.2d 1020 (1947) (an essential requirement of an inter vivos gift is intent); Koscove v. Koscove, 113 Colo. 317 , 156 P.2d 696 (1945) (intention to make a home in fact and absence of any intention to live elsewhere are essential to the acquisition of a domicile); Razatos v. Daniels & Fischer Store Co., 110 Colo. 105 , 13 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Abel v. United States
green
2 sentences1972We can see no distinction and consequently hold that when property is abandoned officers in making a search thereof do not violate any rights or security of a citizen guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.” The rationale of Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 , supports the abandonment doctrine. 1972We can see no distinction and consequently hold that when property is abandoned officers in making a search thereof do not violate any rights or security of a citizen guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.” The rationale of Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 , supports the abandonment doctrine. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
St. John v. Hendrickson
green
1 sentence1914John v. Hendrickson, 81 Ind. 350 , that: “Where one is induced by fraud, in the form of false representations, to enter into a contract, and afterwards, upon obtaining full knowledge of the fraud practiced upon him, and of all material facts, declines to repudiate it, and expressly ratifies it, he can neither rescind nor maintain an action for damages. ’ ’ Upon the foregoing authorities and upon principle we we think the acts of the plaintiff in this case constitute a waiver of the alleged fraud, and an abandonment of the claim for damages. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.