case falls within rule in Colorado

1913Co., 9 Colo., 248 ; Rizer et al. v. The People et al., 18 Colo. App. 40 ; Phillips et al. v. Corbin et al., 8 Colo. App., 346 ; Lanier et al. v. Padgett et al., 18 Fla., 842; Gibson v. Supervisors, 22 Pac.

1913Co., 9 Colo., 248 ; Rizer et al. v. The People et al., 18 Colo. App. 40 ; Phillips et al. v. Corbin et al., 8 Colo. App., 346 ; Lanier et al. v. Padgett et al., 18 Fla., 842; Gibson v. Supervisors, 22 Pac.

1913Co., 9 Colo., 248 ; Rizer et al. v. The People et al., 18 Colo. App. 40 ; Phillips et al. v. Corbin et al., 8 Colo. App., 346 ; Lanier et al. v. Padgett et al., 18 Fla., 842; Gibson v. Supervisors, 22 Pac.

1913Co., 9 Colo., 248 ; Rizer et al. v. The People et al., 18 Colo. App. 40 ; Phillips et al. v. Corbin et al., 8 Colo. App., 346 ; Lanier et al. v. Padgett et al., 18 Fla., 842; Gibson v. Supervisors, 22 Pac.

1913Co., 9 Colo., 248 ; Rizer et al. v. The People et al., 18 Colo. App. 40 ; Phillips et al. v. Corbin et al., 8 Colo. App., 346 ; Lanier et al. v. Padgett et al., 18 Fla., 842; Gibson v. Supervisors, 22 Pac.

1913Co., 9 Colo., 248 ; Rizer et al. v. The People et al., 18 Colo. App. 40 ; Phillips et al. v. Corbin et al., 8 Colo. App., 346 ; Lanier et al. v. Padgett et al., 18 Fla., 842; Gibson v. Supervisors, 22 Pac.

1913This case falls within the rule announced in the foregoing excerpt, but even if it did not, there is abundance of authority which sustains the right of plaintiffs in error to maintain this ac tion. —Martin et al. v. Simpkins et al., 20 Colo., 438 ; Wheeler v. Northern Colo. Ir.

1913This case falls within the rule announced in the foregoing excerpt, but even if it did not, there is abundance of authority which sustains the right of plaintiffs in error to maintain this ac tion. —Martin et al. v. Simpkins et al., 20 Colo., 438 ; Wheeler v. Northern Colo. Ir.

1913Co., 9 Colo., 248 ; Rizer et al. v. The People et al., 18 Colo. App. 40 ; Phillips et al. v. Corbin et al., 8 Colo. App., 346 ; Lanier et al. v. Padgett et al., 18 Fla., 842; Gibson v. Supervisors, 22 Pac.

1913Co., 9 Colo., 248 ; Rizer et al. v. The People et al., 18 Colo. App. 40 ; Phillips et al. v. Corbin et al., 8 Colo. App., 346 ; Lanier et al. v. Padgett et al., 18 Fla., 842; Gibson v. Supervisors, 22 Pac.

1996Beyette, 711 P.2d at 1267 .

1996Beyette, 711 P.2d at 1267 .

1987This case falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine that allows review of matters “capable of repetition yet evading review.” People v. Quinonez, 735 P.2d 159 , 161 n. 1 (Colo.1987); Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo. 1983); Goedecke v. Department of Institutions, 198 Colo. 407 , 410 n. 5, 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979). .

1987This case falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine that allows review of matters “capable of repetition yet evading review.” People v. Quinonez, 735 P.2d 159 , 161 n. 1 (Colo.1987); Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo. 1983); Goedecke v. Department of Institutions, 198 Colo. 407 , 410 n. 5, 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979). .

1987This case falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine that allows review of matters "capable of repetition yet evading review." People v. Quinonez, 735 P.2d 159 , 161 n. 1 (Colo.1987); Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo. 1983); Goedecke v. Department of Institutions, 198 Colo. 407 , 410 n. 5, 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979). [2] Crim.P. 35(a) provides: "The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence." [3] On July 1, 1986, the General Assembly amended sect

1987This case falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine that allows review of matters “capable of repetition yet evading review.” People v. Quinonez, 735 P.2d 159 , 161 n. 1 (Colo.1987); Urevich v. Woodard, 667 P.2d 760, 762 (Colo. 1983); Goedecke v. Department of Institutions, 198 Colo. 407 , 410 n. 5, 603 P.2d 123 , 124 n. 5 (1979). .

1984This case falls within the rule posited in People v. Lindsay, 636 P.2d 1318 (Colo.App.1981), in which we noted that: “An article in a retail outlet has a value significantly different from that which it had in the hands of the wholesaler.

1984This case falls within the rule posited in People v. Lindsay, 636 P.2d 1318 (Colo. App.1981), in which we noted that: "An article in a retail outlet has a value significantly different from that which it had in the hands of the wholesaler.

1961Company, supra.” State, supra. Insult or contumely also are elements that have resulted in liability where there has been merely an injury to property or its possession as distinguished from one to the person.

1938Bank v. Arthur, 12 Colo. App. 90 , 54 Pac. 1107 , to the effect that, “If the officer has properly received moneys, but has improperly and wrongfully paid them out, he cannot in the eyes of the law answer that they are not in his possession.

1936This case falls within the principle announced in Comerford v. Carr, 86 Colo. 590 , 284 Pac. 121 .

1936This case falls within the principle announced in Comerford v. Carr, 86 Colo. 590 , 284 Pac. 121 .

1932Co., 64 Colo. 480 , 174 Pac. 589 , hence the judgment must be affirmed.

1911Supp. 700 ; consequently, the case falls within the rule to' the effect that a receiver of a corporation, having no other right or title to the cor poration’s assets than that derived from the order of the conrt appointing him, has no power to- sne in the courts of a foreign jurisdiction to recover such property o'r assets of the corporation. — Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322 ; Great Western M. & M.

1911Co. v. Harris, 198 U. S. 561 ; Covell v. Fowler, 144 Fed. 535 ; Wigton v. Bosler, 102 Fed. 70 ; Hazard v. Durant, 19 Fed. 471 ; Hale v. Hardon, 89 Fed. 283 .

1911Co. v. Harris, 198 U. S. 561 ; Covell v. Fowler, 144 Fed. 535 ; Wigton v. Bosler, 102 Fed. 70 ; Hazard v. Durant, 19 Fed. 471 ; Hale v. Hardon, 89 Fed. 283 .

1911Co. v. Harris, 198 U. S. 561 ; Covell v. Fowler, 144 Fed. 535 ; Wigton v. Bosler, 102 Fed. 70 ; Hazard v. Durant, 19 Fed. 471 ; Hale v. Hardon, 89 Fed. 283 .

1911Co. v. Harris, 198 U. S. 561 ; Covell v. Fowler, 144 Fed. 535 ; Wigton v. Bosler, 102 Fed. 70 ; Hazard v. Durant, 19 Fed. 471 ; Hale v. Hardon, 89 Fed. 283 .

1911Co. v. Harris, 198 U. S. 561 ; Covell v. Fowler, 144 Fed. 535 ; Wigton v. Bosler, 102 Fed. 70 ; Hazard v. Durant, 19 Fed. 471 ; Hale v. Hardon, 89 Fed. 283 .

1911These services were also for the benefit of the Holmes Hardware Company, so that the case falls within the rule, that when a bailment is reciprocally beneficial to both parties, the law requires ordinary diligence on the part of the bailee, and makes him responsible for ordinary neglect.— Story on Bailments, § 23; Dart v. Lowe, 5 Ind. 131 .

1907This being true, the case falls within the principle announced in Ross v. Campbell, 9 Colo. App. 38 , which case is decisive of this, against the contention of appellant.

1906From the evidence as it appears in the record, this case falls within the rule announced in Lamping v. Keenan, 9 Colo. 390, and Hennessey v. Barnett, 12 Colo. App. 254 .

1906From the evidence as it appears in the record, this case falls within the rule announced in Lamping v. Keenan, 9 Colo. 390, and Hennessey v. Barnett, 12 Colo. App. 254 .

1897We think this case falls within the rule announced in Murray v. Hobson, 10 Colo. 66 : “ When a trustee, in whom is vested, under the law of congress and by patent from the United States, the lands comprising a town site, to be held in trust for the use and benefit of the occupants thereof, has executed a deed of a parcel of such land to one claiming to be a beneficiary of the trust, the legal title of such parcel passes out of the trustee, and vests in the grantee; also that no individual, not then a beneficiary of the trust and interested in said land, is thereafter in a position to question,

1897We think this case falls within the rule announced in Murray v. Hobson, 10 Colo. 66 : “ When a trustee, in whom is vested, under the law of congress and by patent from the United States, the lands comprising a town site, to be held in trust for the use and benefit of the occupants thereof, has executed a deed of a parcel of such land to one claiming to be a beneficiary of the trust, the legal title of such parcel passes out of the trustee, and vests in the grantee; also that no individual, not then a beneficiary of the trust and interested in said land, is thereafter in a position to question,

1897We think this case falls within the rule announced in Murray v. Hobson, 10 Colo. 66 : “ When a trustee, in whom is vested, under the law of congress and by patent from the United States, the lands comprising a town site, to be held in trust for the use and benefit of the occupants thereof, has executed a deed of a parcel of such land to one claiming to be a beneficiary of the trust, the legal title of such parcel passes out of the trustee, and vests in the grantee; also that no individual, not then a beneficiary of the trust and interested in said land, is thereafter in a position to question,