13 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Brantgreen1 sentence2022As to the tail lamp violation, the trial court observed that in People v. Brant, 252 P.3d 459, 463 (Colo. 2011), this court had stated, “Driving with a broken taillight justifies an investigatory vehicle stop.” In addition, the trial court reasoned that because the red tape on the Lincoln's tail lamps was “ragged and pulling away” so that white light could “leak out of the red area,” it was reasonable for the deputies to have concluded that the tail lamps would not emit a red light visible from a distance of five hundred feet. 11 The case proceeded to trial, and at trial, both deputies who had | 1 | 1 |
Wiser v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2018See Relaford, ¶ 25; Wiser, 732 P.2d at 1142 (holding that the use of the objective test to determine whether extraneous information affected a verdict “is consistent with CRE 15 606(b)’s purpose of protecting the privacy of jurors”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Spotogreen1 sentence2014After hearing the parties' arguments, the court began its analysis by performing the four-part test for admitting CRE 404(b) evidence set forth in People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314, 1818 (Colo.1990), recognizing the propriety of joinder when the evidence of each offense would be admissible in separate trials. | 1 | 1 |
Pedlow v. Stampgreen1 sentence1989See Pedlow v. Stamp, 776 P.2d 382 (Colo.1989); Zarlengo v. Farrer, 683 P.2d 1208 (Colo.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Martinez
green
1 sentence2013Id . at 188-89, 523 P.2d at 120 -21 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Harris v. Denver Post Corp.
green
1 sentence2011Although the original request from the television station was apparently submitted under CORA, the court conducted its analysis under the case law decided under CCJRA, primarily Freedom Colorado Information and Harris v. Denver Post Corp., 123 P.3d 1166 (Colo.2005). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Walker
green
2 sentences1997However, the court did not recognize the inherently suggestive nature of the identification procedure which was, in essence, a one-on-one confrontation, see People v. Walker, supra, and did not address the other Walker factors relevant to reliability discussed above. 1997However, the court did not recognize the inherently suggestive nature of the identification procedure which was, in essence, a one-on-one confrontation, see People v. Walker, supra , and did not address the other Walker factors relevant to reliability discussed above. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Timpte v. District Court in and for City and County of Denver
green
2 sentences1993The petitioner again emphasized her concern about Lindenbaum’s alleged potential for bias, and cited Timpte v. District Court, 161 Colo. 309 , 421 P.2d 728 (1966), for the rule that a trial court may allow a party’s attorney to attend a client’s medical examination. 1993The petitioner again emphasized her concern about Lindenbaum’s alleged potential for bias, and cited Timpte v. District Court, 161 Colo. 309 , 421 P.2d 728 (1966), for the rule that a trial court may allow a party’s attorney to attend a client’s medical examination. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Schultheis
green
1 sentence1993People v. Schultheis, supra. Here, on August 19, following the third attorney’s motion to withdraw, the court conducted an inquiry to determine whether that attorney could represent defendant. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1990In a subsequent written order denying Valdez' motion for rehearing, the trial court held that "defendant's appellate counsel's performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms and after considering the circumstances of this case." Referring to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Stroup v. People, 656 P.2d 680 (Colo.1982), and People v. Williams, 736 P.2d 1229 (Colo.App.1986), cert. denied (1987), the trial court also concluded that some prejudice to Valdez must be established to authorize relief pursuant to Crim.P. 35(c), that such pre 1990In a subsequent written order denying Valdez' motion for rehearing, the trial court held that "defendant's appellate counsel's performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms and after considering the circumstances of this case." Referring to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Stroup v. People, 656 P.2d 680 (Colo.1982), and People v. Williams, 736 P.2d 1229 (Colo.App.1986), cert. denied (1987), the trial court also concluded that some prejudice to Valdez must be established to authorize relief pursuant to Crim.P. 35(c), that such pre | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences1990In a subsequent written order denying Valdez' motion for rehearing, the trial court held that "defendant's appellate counsel's performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms and after considering the circumstances of this case." Referring to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Stroup v. People, 656 P.2d 680 (Colo.1982), and People v. Williams, 736 P.2d 1229 (Colo.App.1986), cert. denied (1987), the trial court also concluded that some prejudice to Valdez must be established to authorize relief pursuant to Crim.P. 35(c), that such pre 1990In a subsequent written order denying Valdez’ motion for rehearing, the trial court held that “defendant’s appellate counsel’s performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms and after considering the circumstances of this case.” Referring to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Stroup v. People, 656 P.2d 680 (Colo.1982), and People v. Williams, 736 P.2d 1229 (Colo.App.1986), cert. denied (1987), the trial court also concluded that some prejudice to Valdez must be established to authorize relief pursuant to Crim.P. 35(c), that such pre | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Stroup v. People
green
2 sentences1990In a subsequent written order denying Valdez' motion for rehearing, the trial court held that "defendant's appellate counsel's performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms and after considering the circumstances of this case." Referring to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Stroup v. People, 656 P.2d 680 (Colo.1982), and People v. Williams, 736 P.2d 1229 (Colo.App.1986), cert. denied (1987), the trial court also concluded that some prejudice to Valdez must be established to authorize relief pursuant to Crim.P. 35(c), that such pre 1990In a subsequent written order denying Valdez’ motion for rehearing, the trial court held that “defendant’s appellate counsel’s performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms and after considering the circumstances of this case.” Referring to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Stroup v. People, 656 P.2d 680 (Colo.1982), and People v. Williams, 736 P.2d 1229 (Colo.App.1986), cert. denied (1987), the trial court also concluded that some prejudice to Valdez must be established to authorize relief pursuant to Crim.P. 35(c), that such pre | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Zarlengo v. Farrer
green
1 sentence1989See Pedlow v. Stamp, 776 P.2d 382 (Colo.1989); Zarlengo v. Farrer, 683 P.2d 1208 (Colo.App.1984). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Universal Drilling Company v. Camay Drilling Company
green
1 sentence1989In an effort to determine whether to preclude parol evidence, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to Universal Drilling Co. v. Camay Drilling Co., 737 F.2d 869 (10th Cir.1984), to assess whether the buyers could establish a prima facie case of fraud. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Wade
green
2 sentences1971Prior to trial, the court conducted a hearing concerning the line-up procedure and ruled that it was not conducted within the guidelines set down by United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967). 1971Prior to trial, the court conducted a hearing concerning the line-up procedure and ruled that it was not conducted within the guidelines set down by United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
New Cache la Poudre Irrigating Co. v. Arthur Irrigation Co.
neutral
1 sentence1942An examination of the record discloses the fact that the trial court conducted its hearing on the merits of the case, just as was done in the case of New Cache la Poudre Irrigating Co. v. Arthur Irrigation Co., 37 Colo. 530 , 87 Pac. 799 . | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.