13 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walker v. Associated Pressgreen2 sentences1997See Walker v. Associated Press, 160 Colo. 361, 366 , 417 P.2d 486, 488 (1966); see also 27A Federal Procedure Pleadings and Motions § 62:335 (Lawyer’s Ed.1996) (Where an “amended complaint attempts to add a new legal theory which is unsupported by the factual claims raised in the original complaint, the proposed claim arises from new and distinct conduct, transactions, or occurrences not found in the original complaint ” the amended complaint will not relate back.) (emphasis added). 1997See Walker v. Associated Press, 160 Colo. 361, 366 , 417 P.2d 486, 488 (1966); see also 27A Federal Procedure Pleadings and Motions § 62:335 (Lawyer’s Ed.1996) (Where an “amended complaint attempts to add a new legal theory which is unsupported by the factual claims raised in the original complaint, the proposed claim arises from new and distinct conduct, transactions, or occurrences not found in the original complaint ” the amended complaint will not relate back.) (emphasis added). | 1 | 3 |
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Browngreen1 sentence2024Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 924 (noting that “[f]or an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile”).4 ¶18 Mrs. Green argues that the correct test for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction should center on what she deems a “due process analysis.” Mrs. Green characterizes this analysis as requiring a court to determine if a party has established the requisite minimum contacts with a forum such that they could anticipate being haled into court there. | 1 | 1 |
Nicholls v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., People v. McKnight, 2019 CO 36 , ¶¶ 38–43, 446 P.3d 397 , 406–08 (departing from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to determine a dog sniff was a search under article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution where distinctive state-specific factors overcame the provisions’ substantially similar wording). ¶38 We have also tended to follow federal jurisprudence where, based on our independent analysis, we find the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning to be sound, see, e.g., Nicholls, ¶ 32, 396 P.3d at 681–82 (following new development in federal 24 Confrontation Clause jurisprudence because | 1 | 1 |
Sexton ex rel. Appalachian Reg'l Healthcare, Inc. v. Ky. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs.green1 sentence2020See, e.g., People v. McKnight, 2019 CO 36 , ¶¶ 38–43, 446 P.3d 397 , 406–08 (departing from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to determine a dog sniff was a search under article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution where distinctive state-specific factors overcame the provisions’ substantially similar wording). ¶38 We have also tended to follow federal jurisprudence where, based on our independent analysis, we find the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning to be sound, see, e.g., Nicholls, ¶ 32, 396 P.3d at 681–82 (following new development in federal 24 Confrontation Clause jurisprudence because | 1 | 1 |
Garner v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., People v. McKnight, 2019 CO 36 , ¶¶ 38–43, 446 P.3d 397 , 406–08 (departing from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to determine a dog sniff was a search under article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution where distinctive state-specific factors overcame the provisions’ substantially similar wording). ¶38 We have also tended to follow federal jurisprudence where, based on our independent analysis, we find the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning to be sound, see, e.g., Nicholls, ¶ 32, 396 P.3d at 681–82 (following new development in federal 24 Confrontation Clause jurisprudence because 2020See, e.g., People v. McKnight, 2019 CO 36 , ¶¶ 38–43, 446 P.3d 397 , 406–08 (departing from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to determine a dog sniff was a search under article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution where distinctive state-specific factors overcame the provisions’ substantially similar wording). ¶38 We have also tended to follow federal jurisprudence where, based on our independent analysis, we find the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning to be sound, see, e.g., Nicholls, ¶ 32, 396 P.3d at 681–82 (following new development in federal 24 Confrontation Clause jurisprudence because | 1 | 1 |
People v. McKnightgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., People v. McKnight, 2019 CO 36 , ¶¶ 38–43, 446 P.3d 397 , 406–08 (departing from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to determine a dog sniff was a search under article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution where distinctive state-specific factors overcame the provisions’ substantially similar wording). ¶38 We have also tended to follow federal jurisprudence where, based on our independent analysis, we find the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning to be sound, see, e.g., Nicholls, ¶ 32, 396 P.3d at 681–82 (following new development in federal 24 Confrontation Clause jurisprudence because 2020See, e.g., People v. McKnight, 2019 CO 36 , ¶¶ 38–43, 446 P.3d 397 , 406–08 (departing from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to determine a dog sniff was a search under article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution where distinctive state-specific factors overcame the provisions’ substantially similar wording). ¶38 We have also tended to follow federal jurisprudence where, based on our independent analysis, we find the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning to be sound, see, e.g., Nicholls, ¶ 32, 396 P.3d at 681–82 (following new development in federal 24 Confrontation Clause jurisprudence because | 1 | 1 |
Gallagher v. Board of Trustees for the University of Northern Coloradogreen1 sentence2015Gallagher v. Bd. of Trs. for Univ. of N. Colo., 54 P.3d 386, 395 (Colo. 2002). 1 46 The Lyons assert that even if notice is required only in actions alleging that an employee's acts or omissions occurred within the scope of his or her employment, we should nevertheless not decide whether the Banks' claims fall into this category because the only issue decided by the district court is whether the Banks' CSA claims lie or could lie in tort. | 1 | 1 |
Spracklin v. Industrial Claim Appeals Officegreen2 sentences2012Claim Appeals Office, 66 P.3d 176, 177 (Colo.App.2002). ¶ 12 The purpose of section 8-43-305 is to address “ongoing conduct.” Spracklin, 66 P.3d at 178 . 2012Claim Appeals Office, 66 P.3d 176, 177 (Colo.App.2002). ¶ 12 The purpose of section 8-43-305 is to address “ongoing conduct.” Spracklin, 66 P.3d at 178 . | 1 | 1 |
Pueblo School District No. 70 v. Tothgreen1 sentence2012See Toth, 924 P.2d at 1100 (mandating imposition of the penalty at a “daily rate” where violation was continuing); see also Allison v. Indus. | 1 | 1 |
Wieprzkowski v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.green1 sentence2008See Wieprzkowski, 976 P.2d at 893 ; see also Swan v. Farmers Ins. | 1 | 1 |
McKnight v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.green1 sentence1967See, McKnight v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 20 F.R.D. 563 (N.D.W.Va. 1957); Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall
green
1 sentence2024We have never directly addressed this particular question, but the Supreme Court has suggested that the inquiry for general 3 This is a distinct inquiry from that of specific jurisdiction, which applies when the suit “aris[es] out of or relate[s] to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 , 414 n.8 (1984). 9 personal jurisdiction over an individual begins and ends with domicile. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Delgadillo
green
1 sentence2020Although Deutsch is correct that courts “need not attempt to calculate the amount of prejudice attributable to the conflict,” Edebohls, 944 P.2d at 559 , this is a distinct inquiry from determining whether “an actual conflict of interest affected the quality of representation conclusively establish[ing] a constitutional violation requiring reversal.” People v. Delgadillo, 2012 COA 33, ¶ 36 . ¶ 20 Because Deutsch fails to demonstrate “the existence of an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance,” 8 Hagos, 250 P.3d at 614 , the error — failure to advise about the right to co | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Hagos
green
2 sentences2020Although Deutsch is correct that courts “need not attempt to calculate the amount of prejudice attributable to the conflict,” Edebohls, 944 P.2d at 559 , this is a distinct inquiry from determining whether “an actual conflict of interest affected the quality of representation conclusively establish[ing] a constitutional violation requiring reversal.” People v. Delgadillo, 2012 COA 33, ¶ 36 . ¶ 20 Because Deutsch fails to demonstrate “the existence of an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance,” 8 Hagos, 250 P.3d at 614 , the error — failure to advise about the right to co 2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Edebohls
green
1 sentence2020Although Deutsch is correct that courts “need not attempt to calculate the amount of prejudice attributable to the conflict,” Edebohls, 944 P.2d at 559 , this is a distinct inquiry from determining whether “an actual conflict of interest affected the quality of representation conclusively establish[ing] a constitutional violation requiring reversal.” People v. Delgadillo, 2012 COA 33, ¶ 36 . ¶ 20 Because Deutsch fails to demonstrate “the existence of an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance,” 8 Hagos, 250 P.3d at 614 , the error — failure to advise about the right to co | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Bowers
green
1 sentence1995In People v. Bowers, 716 P.2d 471 (Colo.1986), this court held that substantial compliance with department of health rules, as found in section 42-4-1202(3)(b), is a separate and distinct inquiry from the requirement that the prosecution must lay a proper foundation for the admission of breath test results into evidence at a criminal trial. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Western Contracting Corp. v. National Surety Corp.
green
1 sentence1950Western Contracting Corp. v. National Surety Corp., 4 Cir., 163 F.2d 456 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Dutcher v. Dutcher
green
1 sentence1923In Dutcher v. Dutcher, 39 Wis. 651 , it is said: “Judgment for the defendant upon a general denial, is a general judgment; a bar to all future actions for the same cause. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
California Steam Navigation Co. v. Wright
neutral
1 sentence1923Co. v. Wright, 8 Cal. 585 , it is said that a general denial relates to the facts alleged concerning the controversy and not to the capacity to sue; that want of capacity is a distinct defense to be separately stated. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.