first step test in Colorado

2003Bar 70 Enters., Inc. v. Tosco Corp., 703 P.2d 1297, 1307 (Colo.1985).

2003Bar 70 Enters., Inc. v. Tosco Corp., 703 P.2d 1297, 1307 (Colo.1985).

2003See id. at 925 .

2003Id. at 926 .

2025Board of Water Commissioners v. Colorado River Water Conservation District , 696 P.2d 730 , 747 n.13 (Colo. 1985), it observed that such determinations "must always be made on an ad hoc basis, taking into account whether the particular 21 facts of each case satisfy the purposes underlying the requirements of the first step test [as to intent and overt acts towards an appropriation]." (Alteration in the 2023 order.) The water court also analyzed our holding in City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co. , 926 P.2d 1, 34 (Colo. 1996), in which we noted that "notice does not require an applicant to

2003Bijou Irrigation, 926 P.2d at 32 .

2026As already noted, when a party is pro se — as the Sweets were for much of this litigation — the court must also find that the party “clearly knew or reasonably should have known” that their action or defense was substantially frivolous, groundless, or vexatious. § 13-17-102(6). ¶ 28 The first step of the analysis is “to determine whether the action in question (or any part thereof) ‘lacked substantial justification.’” Munoz v. Measner, 247 P.3d 1031, 1034 (Colo. 2011).

2022I d. ¶ 32 At the first step of the analysis, it is well settled that in closing argument a prosecutor may not convey an opinion about the t ruth or falsity of a witness’s testimony; nor may the prosecutor sugge st “ personal knowledge of evidence unknown to the jury .” Domingo-Gomez v. People , 125 P.3d 1043, 1049 (Colo. 2005).

2012Harper v. People, 817 P.2d 77, 83 (Colo.1991). 182 In implementing the first step of this test, a trial court should consider "whether the content of the media report is inherently prejudicial" as well as "whether the report contained information that would not be admissible at trial or that was not in fact adduced before the jury and how closely related the publicity is to the matters at issue in the trial." Id. at 84 (citation omitted).

2012Harper v. People, 817 P.2d 77, 83 (Colo.1991). 182 In implementing the first step of this test, a trial court should consider "whether the content of the media report is inherently prejudicial" as well as "whether the report contained information that would not be admissible at trial or that was not in fact adduced before the jury and how closely related the publicity is to the matters at issue in the trial." Id. at 84 (citation omitted).

1996Adequacy of Overt Acts to Give Notice—General Standards From the very earliest decisions concerning conditional rights, this court adopted an “inquiry notice” standard. 18 In Frwitland Irrigation Co. v. Kruemling, we explained the notice function of the first step test: Certainly the first step demanded by the rule is nothing short of an open and notorious physical demonstration, conclusively indicating a fixed purpose to diligently pursue and, within a reasonable time, ultimately acquire a right to the use of water, and as its primary function is to give notice to those subsequently desiring

1996Adequacy of Overt Acts to Give Notice—General Standards From the very earliest decisions concerning conditional rights, this court adopted an “inquiry notice” standard. 18 In Frwitland Irrigation Co. v. Kruemling, we explained the notice function of the first step test: Certainly the first step demanded by the rule is nothing short of an open and notorious physical demonstration, conclusively indicating a fixed purpose to diligently pursue and, within a reasonable time, ultimately acquire a right to the use of water, and as its primary function is to give notice to those subsequently desiring

1993In Eagle River Mobile Home Park v. District Court, 647 P.2d 660, 662 (Colo.1982), we considered the application of Rule 15(a), including in particular this instructive phrase, and stated that: [t]he rule prescribes a liberal policy of amendment and encourages the courts to look favorably on requests to amend.

1985See infra at 750-51, 753; Aspen v. Colorado River Water Conservation District, 696 P.2d at 762 (decided this day); Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Vidler Tunnel Water Co., 197 Colo. 413, 417 , 594 P.2d 566, 568 (1979).

1985See infra at 750-51, 753; Aspen v. Colorado River Water Conservation District, 696 P.2d at 762 (decided this day); Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Vidler Tunnel Water Co., 197 Colo. 413, 417 , 594 P.2d 566, 568 (1979).

1985See infra at 750-51, 753; Aspen v. Colorado River Water Conservation District, 696 P.2d at 762 (decided this day); Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Vidler Tunnel Water Co., 197 Colo. 413, 417 , 594 P.2d 566, 568 (1979).