14 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Subsequent Injury Fund v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Thompson, 793 P.2d at 578-79 (outlining policy concerns stemming from the full responsibility rule). 1998Subsequent Injury Fund v. Thompson, 793 P.2d 576 (Colo.1990). | 3 | 4 |
Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2000Whereas many states had adopted apportionment statutes in conjunction with comprehensive subsequent injury funds, Colorado had no such apportionment statute and only a very limited subsequent *1155 injury fund. 2 Thus, applying the full responsibility rule, we held that “[w]hen an employer hires an employee who, by reason of a pre-existing condition or by reason of a prior injury, is to some extent disabled, he takes the man with such handicap.” Id. at 26 , 379 P.2d at 158 . 2000Whereas many states had adopted apportionment statutes in conjunction with comprehensive subsequent injury funds, Colorado had no such apportionment statute and only a very limited subsequent *1155 injury fund. 2 Thus, applying the full responsibility rule, we held that “[w]hen an employer hires an employee who, by reason of a pre-existing condition or by reason of a prior injury, is to some extent disabled, he takes the man with such handicap.” Id. at 26 , 379 P.2d at 158 . | 1 | 2 |
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Bacagreen2 sentences1999Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Baca, 682 P.2d 11 (Colo.1984). 1990Hatch, 690 P.2d at 202 ; Sears, Roe *579 buck & Co. v. Baca, 682 P.2d 11, 15 (Colo. 1984). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hochanadelgreen2 sentences2009The court therefore held that "a primary caregiver must establish he or she satisfies the responsibility clause based on evidence independent of the administration of medical marijuana." Id. at 1068; see also People v. Hochanadel, 176 Cal.App.4th 997 , 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347, 362 (2009) (storefront medical marijuana dispensary operators were not "primary caregivers" despite being designated as such by patients because no evidence showed an existing, established relationship of providing for patients' housing, health, or safety independent of administering medical marijuana). 2009The court therefore held that "a primary caregiver must establish he or she satisfies the responsibility clause based on evidence independent of the administration of medical marijuana." Id. at 1068; see also People v. Hochanadel, 176 Cal.App.4th 997 , 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347, 362 (2009) (storefront medical marijuana dispensary operators were not "primary caregivers" despite being designated as such by patients because no evidence showed an existing, established relationship of providing for patients' housing, health, or safety independent of administering medical marijuana). | 1 | 1 |
Waddell v. Industrial Claim Appeals Officegreen1 sentence2000See Waddell, 964 P.2d at 554 (finding apportionment of non-industrial injury proper under the previous disability statute when the SIF would not cover the non-industrial injury). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bullock v. Wayne
green
1 sentence2016And while “it is the licensee’s responsibility to challenge alleged mistakes in the records of the department as to his driving history,” the licensee “may not relitigate the issue of guilt as to the offenses shown on his record.” Id. ¶ 22 Given all this, allowing evidence of the Article 4 convictions in any other civil action — merely because those convictions formed the basis of a person’s HTO status — would defeat the purpose of section 42-4-1713, as explained in Bullock, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 1254 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Reed v. Zaitz
green
2 sentences2010It is a property owner's responsibility to challenge an improper assessment "before *891 the county has been deprived of the use of the taxes for the period involved and before the purchaser at a tax sale is protected by [{statute]." Id. at 90 , 65 P.2d at 712 . 2010It is a property owner's responsibility to challenge an improper assessment "before *891 the county has been deprived of the use of the taxes for the period involved and before the purchaser at a tax sale is protected by [{statute]." Id. at 90 , 65 P.2d at 712 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Mentch
green
2 sentences2009Like these two courts, we conclude that the primary care-giver affirmative defense does not apply "where the provision of marijuana is itself the substance of the relationship." Mentch, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 480 , 195 P.3d at 1070 . 2009Like these two courts, we conclude that the primary care-giver affirmative defense does not apply "where the provision of marijuana is itself the substance of the relationship." Mentch, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 480 , 195 P.3d at 1070 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United Airlines, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
green
1 sentence2004Claim Appeals Office, 993 P.2d 1152 (Colo.2000); State Comp. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Askew v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
green
2 sentences1998Further, in Askew v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 927 P.2d 1333 (Colo.1996)(fn.l0), the supreme court recognized that the announcement of the full responsibility rule in Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Industrial Commission, supra, occurred prior to the existence of § 8-42-104(2), and does not operate to bar application of that statute. 1998Further, in Askew v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 927 P.2d 1333 (Colo.1996)(fn.10), the supreme court recognized that the announcement of the full responsibility rule in Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. Industrial Commission, supra , occurred prior to the existence of § 8-42-104(2), and does not operate to bar application of that statute. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Pacheco v. Roaring Fork Aggregates
neutral
1 sentence1998Pacheco v. Roaring Fork Aggregates, 897 P.2d 872 (Colo.App.1995). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
City & County of Denver v. Industrial Commission
green
1 sentence1990Hatch, 690 P.2d at 202 ; Sears, Roe *579 buck & Co. v. Baca, 682 P.2d 11, 15 (Colo. 1984). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Western Sizzlin Steak House v. Axton
green
1 sentence1986West *241 ern Sizzlin Steak House v. Axton, 701 P.2d 96 (Colo.App.1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Tri-State Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission
neutral
2 sentences1985Tri-State Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission, 151 Colo. 494 , 379 P.2d 388 (1963). 1985Tri-State Insurance Co. v. Industrial Commission, 151 Colo. 494 , 379 P.2d 388 (1963). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. McKnight
green
1 sentence1981People v. McKnight, supra; Zaba v. Motor Vehicle Division, 183 Colo. 335 , 516 P.2d 634 (1973). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Zaba v. Motor Vehicle Division, Dept. of Revenue
green
2 sentences1981People v. McKnight, supra; Zaba v. Motor Vehicle Division, 183 Colo. 335 , 516 P.2d 634 (1973). 1981People v. McKnight, supra; Zaba v. Motor Vehicle Division, 183 Colo. 335 , 516 P.2d 634 (1973). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.