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.
15 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 9 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. Wiedemergreen2 sentences2026People v. Vigil, 983 P.2d 805, 809-10 (Colo. App. 1999) (citing People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424, 441-42 (Colo. 1993)). ¶8 “[A] Crim.[ ]P. 35(c) motion must allege facts that if true would establish justifiable excuse or excusable neglect in order to entitle the moving party to a hearing on the applicability of this exception to the time bar of § 16-5-402(1).” Wiedemer, 852 P.2d at 440 n.15. 2026See Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(IV) (“The court shall promptly review all motions” and “should consider, among other things, whether the motion is timely pursuant to § 16-5-402.”); see also People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424 , 440 n.15 (Colo. 1993) (“[A] Crim. P. 35(c) motion must allege facts that if true would establish justifiable excuse or excusable neglect in order to entitle the moving party to a hearing on the applicability of this exception to the time bar of § 16-5-402(1).”). ¶9 Second, we disagree with Vigil’s argument that, given his pro se status, checking the box to indicate circumstances amo | 3 | 7 |
Hesse v. McClinticgreen2 sentences2025Co., 841 P.2d 325, 328 (Colo. App. 1992)). 5 Accordingly, the court should deny a motion for a directed verdict “unless there is no evidence that could support a verdict against the moving party on the claim.” Parks v. Edward Dale Parrish LLC, 2019 COA 19, ¶ 10 . ¶ 16 “[T]he question of whether a person was negligent — that is, whether she breached her duty of care by acting unreasonably under the circumstances — is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.” Hesse v. McClintic, 176 P.3d 759, 764 (Colo. 2008). 2022However, because the PCP was not endorsed as an expert on the standard of care, he was not permitted to testify directly on that issue. 12 ¶ 32 “[T]he question of whether a person was negligent — that is, whether [that person] breached [the] duty of care by acting unreasonably under the circumstances — is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.” Hesse v. McClintic, 176 P.3d 759, 764 (Colo. 2008). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Vigilgreen1 sentence2026People v. Vigil, 983 P.2d 805, 809-10 (Colo. App. 1999) (citing People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424, 441-42 (Colo. 1993)). ¶8 “[A] Crim.[ ]P. 35(c) motion must allege facts that if true would establish justifiable excuse or excusable neglect in order to entitle the moving party to a hearing on the applicability of this exception to the time bar of § 16-5-402(1).” Wiedemer, 852 P.2d at 440 n.15. | 1 | 1 |
Burgess v. Mid-Century Insurance Co.green1 sentence2025Co., 841 P.2d 325, 328 (Colo. App. 1992)). 5 Accordingly, the court should deny a motion for a directed verdict “unless there is no evidence that could support a verdict against the moving party on the claim.” Parks v. Edward Dale Parrish LLC, 2019 COA 19, ¶ 10 . ¶ 16 “[T]he question of whether a person was negligent — that is, whether she breached her duty of care by acting unreasonably under the circumstances — is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.” Hesse v. McClintic, 176 P.3d 759, 764 (Colo. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Day v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2022A court shouldn’t grant a motion for directed verdict “unless there is no evidence that could support a verdict 7 against the moving party on the claim.” Parks v. Edward Dale Parrish LLC, 2019 COA 19, ¶ 10 . ¶ 22 “Like other negligence actions,” to succeed on a medical malpractice action, a “plaintiff must show a legal duty of care on the defendant’s part, breach of that duty, injury to the plaintiff, and that the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Day v. Johnson, 255 P.3d 1064, 1068-69 (Colo. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Boulders at Escalante LLC v. Otten Johnson Robinson Neff & Ragonetti PCgreen1 sentence2019Id.; accord Boulders at Escalante LLC v. Otten Johnson Robinson Neff & Ragonetti PC, 2015 COA 85 , ¶ 19. 2. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brackgreen1 sentence1993See Brack, 796 P.2d at 50 . 16 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
v. Parrish
green
2 sentences2025Co., 841 P.2d 325, 328 (Colo. App. 1992)). 5 Accordingly, the court should deny a motion for a directed verdict “unless there is no evidence that could support a verdict against the moving party on the claim.” Parks v. Edward Dale Parrish LLC, 2019 COA 19, ¶ 10 . ¶ 16 “[T]he question of whether a person was negligent — that is, whether she breached her duty of care by acting unreasonably under the circumstances — is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.” Hesse v. McClintic, 176 P.3d 759, 764 (Colo. 2008). 2024Accordingly, the court should deny a motion for a directed verdict “unless there is no evidence that could support a verdict against the moving party on the claim.” Parks v. Edward Dale Parrish LLC, 2019 COA 19, ¶ 10 . ¶ 10 We review de novo the trial court’s ruling on a motion for a directed verdict. | 4 | 2022–2025 |
v. Alvarado Hinojos
green
2 sentences2024People v. Hinojos , 2019 CO 60, ¶ 17 ; People v. Wiedemer , 852 P.2d 424 , 440 n.15 (Colo. 1993). 2024People v. Hinojos , 2019 CO 60, ¶ 17 ; People v. Wiedemer , 852 P.2d 424 , 440 n.15 (Colo. 1993). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Close v. People
green
2 sentences2019Consistent with Wiedemer , in Close , we determined, as a matter of law, that Close's Rule 35(c) postconviction motion merited a hearing because it "alleged facts which, if true, would establish justifiable excuse or excusable neglect." 180 P.3d at 1022 . 2019Consistent with Wiedemer , in Close , we determined, as a matter of law, that Close's Rule 35(c) postconviction motion merited a hearing because it "alleged facts which, if true, would establish justifiable excuse or excusable neglect." 180 P.3d at 1022 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Laughman v. Girtakovskis
green
1 sentence2020Laughman v. Girtakovskis, 2015 COA 143, ¶ 9 . 4 B. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
of Thorstad —
green
1 sentence2020A court should not grant either motion “unless there is no evidence that could support a verdict against the moving party on the claim.” Id. ¶9 To prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant owed her a legal duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the plaintiff suffered injury; and (4) the cause of that injury was the defendant’s conduct. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Craig v. Rider
green
2 sentences1986Craig, 651 P.2d at 403 . 1986Craig, 651 P.2d at 403 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.