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 1888–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Group 1 Services., Ltd. v. Michilletigreen1 sentence2025See Craig, 651 P.2d at 402-03 (explaining that “[r]esolution of disputes on their merits is favored” in the context of setting aside default judgments); Group 1 Servs., 650 P.2d at 1306 (reversing the district court’s dismissal of a case when the plaintiff failed to comply with a local rule on the contents of a filing); Farber, 596 P.2d at 399-400 (reversing a district court’s dismissal of a case based on a failure to prosecute). 10 ¶ 20 Simply put, although there may be a general presumption favoring resolving cases on the merits, McMechan doesn’t explain how this general presumption saves he | 1 | 1 |
Farber v. Green Shoe Mfg. Co.red1 sentence2025See Craig, 651 P.2d at 402-03 (explaining that “[r]esolution of disputes on their merits is favored” in the context of setting aside default judgments); Group 1 Servs., 650 P.2d at 1306 (reversing the district court’s dismissal of a case when the plaintiff failed to comply with a local rule on the contents of a filing); Farber, 596 P.2d at 399-400 (reversing a district court’s dismissal of a case based on a failure to prosecute). 10 ¶ 20 Simply put, although there may be a general presumption favoring resolving cases on the merits, McMechan doesn’t explain how this general presumption saves he | 1 | 1 |
Craig v. Ridergreen1 sentence2025See Craig, 651 P.2d at 402-03 (explaining that “[r]esolution of disputes on their merits is favored” in the context of setting aside default judgments); Group 1 Servs., 650 P.2d at 1306 (reversing the district court’s dismissal of a case when the plaintiff failed to comply with a local rule on the contents of a filing); Farber, 596 P.2d at 399-400 (reversing a district court’s dismissal of a case based on a failure to prosecute). 10 ¶ 20 Simply put, although there may be a general presumption favoring resolving cases on the merits, McMechan doesn’t explain how this general presumption saves he | 1 | 1 |
In re the Marriage of Petroffgreen1 sentence2019Husband, however, rests this argument on case law analyzing the actions of state court referees at a time when they possessed less authority than do present-day magistrates. ¶ 18 For example, husband cites to In re Marriage of Petroff, 666 P.2d 1131, 1132 (Colo. App. 1983), which held that, under a local rule of the Twentieth Judicial District, a referee’s decision was merely a recommendation, and not an order or judgment, absent further district court action. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Burlington Northern Railroadgreen1 sentence2002See Clark v. Burlington N. R.R., 112 F.R.D. 117, 118 (N.D.Miss.1986) (interpreting local rule providing that "each subpart of a question shall be counted as a question," reasoning that the local rule was not "intended to frustrate legitimate discovery efforts," and concluding that "an interrogatory is to be counted as but a single question ... even though it may call for an answer containing several separate bits of information, if there is a direct relationship between the various bits of information called for'); see also Ginn, 137 F.R.D. at 320, 322 (interpreting local rule limiting number | 1 | 1 |
Ginn v. Gemini Inc.green1 sentence2002See Clark v. Burlington N. R.R., 112 F.R.D. 117, 118 (N.D.Miss.1986) (interpreting local rule providing that "each subpart of a question shall be counted as a question," reasoning that the local rule was not "intended to frustrate legitimate discovery efforts," and concluding that "an interrogatory is to be counted as but a single question ... even though it may call for an answer containing several separate bits of information, if there is a direct relationship between the various bits of information called for'); see also Ginn, 137 F.R.D. at 320, 322 (interpreting local rule limiting number | 1 | 1 |
Toys \R\" USgreen1 sentence1993See Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Canarsie Kiddie Shop, Inc., 559 F.Supp. 1189 (E.D.N.Y.1983); Ways & Means, Inc. v. IVAC Corp., 506 F.Supp. 697 (N.D.Calif.1979) (survey evidence admissible if there is some necessity that makes the survey desirable and if it was conducted in accordance with accepted principles of survey research). | 1 | 1 |
R. Lloyd Co. v. Dist. Ct. 20th Jud. Dist.green1 sentence1992See also Raymond Lloyd Co. v. District Court, 732 P.2d 612 (Colo.1987) (original jurisdiction invoked to determine whether the district court had authority, pursuant to a local rule, to impose sanctions against parties to civil actions who settled their disputes after trial dates had been set); People v. District Court, 664 P.2d 247 (Colo.1983) (original jurisdiction to review whether trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence as a sanction was appropriate because the prosecution’s ability to litigate would be impaired by the trial court order and because the defendant could not b | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1988Without more, this did not meet the “clear indication” test. 192 Colo. at 256, 258 , 557 P.2d at 405, 407 . . 1988Without more, this did not meet the “clear indication” test. 192 Colo. at 256, 258 , 557 P.2d at 405, 407 . . | 1 | 1 |
Joseph Felice Burge v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences1987Burge v. Estelle, 496 F.2d 1177, 1178 (5th Cir. 1974) ("A more strict local rule may serve as a deterrent to lawless action. 1987Burge v. Estelle, 496 F.2d 1177, 1178 (5th Cir.1974) (“A more strict local rule may serve as a deterrent to lawless action. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Valdez v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2002But see Valdez v. Ford Motor Co., 134 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D.Nev.1991) (interpreting local rule limiting interrogatories to 40 "including subparts" and holding that rule requires that every part of an interrogatory be counted toward the limit). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pittman v. District Court
green
2 sentences1984No papers, documents, or process shall ... be permitted to be filed until such fees covering such filings are collected...." The trial court's construction of this rule is reasonable: the jury fee must be paid at the time the demand is filed, and if the rule is not followed, then the demand is waived. [2] Further, this local rule is consistent with the rules of civil procedure adopted by this court. [3] Pittman v. District Court, 149 Colo. 380 , 369 P.2d 85 (1962). 1984No papers, documents, or process shall ... be permitted to be filed until such fees covering such filings are collected...." The trial court's construction of this rule is reasonable: the jury fee must be paid at the time the demand is filed, and if the rule is not followed, then the demand is waived. [2] Further, this local rule is consistent with the rules of civil procedure adopted by this court. [3] Pittman v. District Court, 149 Colo. 380 , 369 P.2d 85 (1962). | 4 | 1984–1987 |
State v. Feregrino
green
1 sentence2010In Feregrino, 756 N.W.2d at 707-08 , the Towa Supreme Court construed a local rule of eriminal procedure providing that "(clases required to be tried to a jury shall be so tried unless the defendant voluntarily and intelligently waives a jury trial in writing and on the record." The prosecution there conceded the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the rule, but the Towa Supreme Court refused to order a new trial, stating: Nothing in this opinion undercuts the salutary purpose of [the rule], which is designed to ensure that a defendant is informed of his right to a | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ways & Means, Inc. v. Ivac Corp.
green
1 sentence1993See Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Canarsie Kiddie Shop, Inc., 559 F.Supp. 1189 (E.D.N.Y.1983); Ways & Means, Inc. v. IVAC Corp., 506 F.Supp. 697 (N.D.Calif.1979) (survey evidence admissible if there is some necessity that makes the survey desirable and if it was conducted in accordance with accepted principles of survey research). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. District Court of the 2nd Judicial District
green
1 sentence1992See also Raymond Lloyd Co. v. District Court, 732 P.2d 612 (Colo.1987) (original jurisdiction invoked to determine whether the district court had authority, pursuant to a local rule, to impose sanctions against parties to civil actions who settled their disputes after trial dates had been set); People v. District Court, 664 P.2d 247 (Colo.1983) (original jurisdiction to review whether trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence as a sanction was appropriate because the prosecution’s ability to litigate would be impaired by the trial court order and because the defendant could not b | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Kappers v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1985As was stated in Kappers v. Thomas, 32 Colo.App. 200 , 511 P.2d 910 (1973): “This being so, we perceive no abuse of discretion by the trial court in dismissing the complaint, and conclude that it was a proper case for dismissal with prejudice .... see C.R.C.P. 41(b).” II. 1985As was stated in Kappers v. Thomas, 32 Colo.App. 200 , 511 P.2d 910 (1973): “This being so, we perceive no abuse of discretion by the trial court in dismissing the complaint, and conclude that it was a proper case for dismissal with prejudice .... see C.R.C.P. 41(b).” II. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Williams v. City Council of Augusta
green
1 sentence1888But an ordinance is not a public or general law; it is not taken judicial notice of in suits or actions, but must be pleaded and proven; it is a local rule or by-law; a police regulation for the city; and proceedings thereunder are penal actions for the enforcement of local “domestic regulations.” Cooper v. People, 41 Mich. 403 ; Garland v. City of Denver, 11 Colo. 534 ; Shafer v. Mumma, 17 Md. 331 ; People v. Board, 26 Mich. 422 ; Hughes v. People, 8 Colo. 539 ; Williams v. City of Augusta, 4 Ga. 509 ; Williams v. Davidson, 43 Tex. 35 . | 1 | 1888–1888 |
Shafer v. Mumma
green
1 sentence1888But an ordinance is not a public or general law; it is not taken judicial notice of in suits or actions, but must be pleaded and proven; it is a local rule or by-law; a police regulation for the city; and proceedings thereunder are penal actions for the enforcement of local “domestic regulations.” Cooper v. People, 41 Mich. 403 ; Garland v. City of Denver, 11 Colo. 534 ; Shafer v. Mumma, 17 Md. 331 ; People v. Board, 26 Mich. 422 ; Hughes v. People, 8 Colo. 539 ; Williams v. City of Augusta, 4 Ga. 509 ; Williams v. Davidson, 43 Tex. 35 . | 1 | 1888–1888 |
Garland v. City of Denver
green
1 sentence1888But an ordinance is not a public or general law; it is not taken judicial notice of in suits or actions, but must be pleaded and proven; it is a local rule or by-law; a police regulation for the city; and proceedings thereunder are penal actions for the enforcement of local “domestic regulations.” Cooper v. People, 41 Mich. 403 ; Garland v. City of Denver, 11 Colo. 534 ; Shafer v. Mumma, 17 Md. 331 ; People v. Board, 26 Mich. 422 ; Hughes v. People, 8 Colo. 539 ; Williams v. City of Augusta, 4 Ga. 509 ; Williams v. Davidson, 43 Tex. 35 . | 1 | 1888–1888 |
Cooper v. People
neutral
1 sentence1888But an ordinance is not a public or general law; it is not taken judicial notice of in suits or actions, but must be pleaded and proven; it is a local rule or by-law; a police regulation for the city; and proceedings thereunder are penal actions for the enforcement of local “domestic regulations.” Cooper v. People, 41 Mich. 403 ; Garland v. City of Denver, 11 Colo. 534 ; Shafer v. Mumma, 17 Md. 331 ; People v. Board, 26 Mich. 422 ; Hughes v. People, 8 Colo. 539 ; Williams v. City of Augusta, 4 Ga. 509 ; Williams v. Davidson, 43 Tex. 35 . | 1 | 1888–1888 |
People ex rel. Mixer v. Board of Supervisors
green
1 sentence1888But an ordinance is not a public or general law; it is not taken judicial notice of in suits or actions, but must be pleaded and proven; it is a local rule or by-law; a police regulation for the city; and proceedings thereunder are penal actions for the enforcement of local “domestic regulations.” Cooper v. People, 41 Mich. 403 ; Garland v. City of Denver, 11 Colo. 534 ; Shafer v. Mumma, 17 Md. 331 ; People v. Board, 26 Mich. 422 ; Hughes v. People, 8 Colo. 539 ; Williams v. City of Augusta, 4 Ga. 509 ; Williams v. Davidson, 43 Tex. 35 . | 1 | 1888–1888 |
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.