14 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Summersgreen2 sentences2024"It is well established in Colorado that when the General Assembly indicates in an effective date clause that a statute shall apply prospectively, courts are bound by that language." People v. Summers , 208 P.3d 251, 257 (Colo. 2009). 2024Laws at 3332. “[When] the General Assembly indicates in an effective date clause that a statute shall apply prospectively, courts are bound by that language.” People v. Summers, 208 P.3d 251, 257 (Colo. 2009). | 6 | 6 |
People v. McCoygreen2 sentences2015See Riley , 828 P.2d at 258 ; McCoy , 764 P.2d at 1174 . ¶102       I readily concede that the effective date clause in section 16(9) does not contain âon or afterâ language. 2015See Riley, 828 P.2d at 258 ; McCoy, 764 P.2d at 1174 . ¶ 102 I readily concede that the effective date clause in section 16(9) does not contain “on or after” language. | 3 | 4 |
Riley v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2015See Riley , 828 P.2d at 258 ; McCoy , 764 P.2d at 1174 . ¶102       I readily concede that the effective date clause in section 16(9) does not contain âon or afterâ language. 2015See Riley, 828 P.2d at 258 ; McCoy, 764 P.2d at 1174 . ¶ 102 I readily concede that the effective date clause in section 16(9) does not contain “on or after” language. | 2 | 2 |
People v. MacIasgreen2 sentences2009See People v. McCoy, 764 P.2d 1171, 1174 (Colo. 1988) (applying statute prospectively where effective date clause stated that amendments "shall apply to acts committed on or after" its effective date of July 1, 1985); People v. Macias, 631 P.2d 584, 587 (Colo.1981) (applying statute prospectively where effective date clause read, "This Act shall take effect July 1, 1979, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after said date"); People v. Patnode, 126 P.3d 249, 258 (Colo.App.2005) (applying statute prospectively where effective date clause said the amendment "shall take effect July 1, 1999 1989See People v. McCoy, supra; People v. Macias, supra. The amendments may be construed in a manner consistent with the effective date clause, while avoiding the anomalous result discussed above. | 1 | 3 |
Golden Animal Hospital v. Hortongreen1 sentence2013No. 10CA1138, Nov. 10, 2011); see, eg., Golden Animal Hosp. v. Horton, 897 P.2d 833, 836 (Colo.1995) (concluding that "[the plain meaning" of a statute made effective July 1, 1991, and applying "to injuries occurring on or after said date" is that the statute "applies only to injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1991"); Nye v. Indus. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Patnodegreen2 sentences2009See People v. McCoy, 764 P.2d 1171, 1174 (Colo.1988) (applying statute prospectively where effective date clause stated that amendments "shall apply to acts committed on or after" its effective date of July 1, 1985); People v. Macias, 631 P.2d 584, 587 (Colo.1981) (applying statute prospectively where effective date clause read, "This Act shall take effect July 1, 1979, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after said date"); People v. Patnode, 126 P.3d 249, 258 (Colo.App.2005) (applying statute prospectively where effective date clause said the amendment "shall take effect July 1, 1999, 2009See People v. McCoy, 764 P.2d 1171, 1174 (Colo. 1988) (applying statute prospectively where effective date clause stated that amendments "shall apply to acts committed on or after" its effective date of July 1, 1985); People v. Macias, 631 P.2d 584, 587 (Colo.1981) (applying statute prospectively where effective date clause read, "This Act shall take effect July 1, 1979, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after said date"); People v. Patnode, 126 P.3d 249, 258 (Colo.App.2005) (applying statute prospectively where effective date clause said the amendment "shall take effect July 1, 1999 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gaskinsgreen1 sentence1996See also People v. Gaskins, 923 P.2d 292 (Colo.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Marriage of Tognoni
green
2 sentences2013For this reason, courts in other jurisdictions have concluded that such language shows clear legislative intent to apply the statute retroactively. 5 The hospital cites no contrary authority involving an effective date clause phrased in terms of "actions filed" or similar wording. 113 Further, had the General Assembly intended to apply the current statute only to injuries occurring on or after July 1, 2012, as the hospital asserts, "it could have easily added specific language to do so, as it has elsewhere." In re Marriage of Tognoni, 313 P.3d 655, 660 , 2011 WL 5436480 (Colo.App. 2013For this reason, courts in other jurisdictions have concluded that such language shows clear legislative intent to apply the statute retroactively. 5 The hospital cites no contrary authority involving an effective date clause phrased in terms of "actions filed" or similar wording. 113 Further, had the General Assembly intended to apply the current statute only to injuries occurring on or after July 1, 2012, as the hospital asserts, "it could have easily added specific language to do so, as it has elsewhere." In re Marriage of Tognoni, 313 P.3d 655, 660 , 2011 WL 5436480 (Colo.App. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In re Interrogatories of the Governor
green
1 sentence2009In re Interrogatories by Governor, 66 Colo. at 320 , 181 P. at 198. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Boston
neutral
2 sentences2009Second, it determined that because the effective date clause appears only in the Colorado Session Laws, and not in the Colorado Revised Statutes, it is "not considered to be a part of the official statutes of the state." Id. at --, at *3. 2009Second, it determined that because the effective date clause appears only in the Colorado Session Laws, and not in the Colorado Revised Statutes, it is "not considered to be a part of the official statutes of the state." Id. at ___, at *3. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Gallegos
neutral
1 sentence1994See People v. McCoy, 764 P.2d 1171 (Colo.1988); People v. Gallegos, 789 P.2d 461 (Colo.App.1989). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.