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.
13 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1980–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Browngreen2 sentences1986I believe that deference to the judgment and discretion of the grievance committee and the disciplinary prosecutor requires us to impose a suspension no greater than that sought by the prosecutor, see People v. Brown, 726 P.2d 638, 641 (Colo.1986) (Dubofsky, J., dissenting), and in most cases we should follow the recommendation of the hearing panel. 1986I believe that deference to the judgment and discretion of the grievance committee and the disciplinary prosecutor requires us to impose a suspension no greater than that sought by the prosecutor, see People v. Brown, 726 P.2d 638, 641 (Colo.1986) (Dubofsky, J., dissenting), and in most cases we should follow the recommendation of the hearing panel. | 2 | 2 |
Blair v. Lovettgreen2 sentences1986I recognize that under Blair v. Lovett, 196 Colo. 118 , 582 P.2d 668 (1978), only findings of basic or evidentiary fact, if supported by evidence, are binding on the board, and the recommendation of the hearing officer is not binding. 1986I recognize that under Blair v. Lovett, 196 Colo. 118 , 582 P.2d 668 (1978), only findings of basic or evidentiary fact, if supported by evidence, are binding on the board, and the recommendation of the hearing officer is not binding. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Crimaldigreen1 sentence1993I In No. 92SA426, the hearing board concluded that the assistant disciplinary counsel had not proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the facts contained in the complaint (and deemed admitted by virtue of the entry of a default against the respondent, People v. Crimaldi, 804 P.2d 863, 864 (Colo.1991)) did not rise to the level of the neglect of a legal matter under DR 6-101(A)(3). | 1 | 1 |
Ricci v. Davisgreen1 sentence1993In Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111, 1117 (Colo.1981), our supreme court discussed the appropriate standard of review in teacher dismissal cases. [A] school board is bound by the findings of evidentiary fact made by the hearing panel if those findings are adequately supported in the record of the panel’s proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Floresgreen1 sentence1991See C.R.C.P. 241.15(c); People v. Flores, 772 P.2d 610, 614 (Colo.1989); People v. Brown, 726 P.2d 638, 640-41 (Colo.1986). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Schubertgreen1 sentence1991E.g., People v. Schubert, 799 P.2d 388, 392 (Colo.1990). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Davisgreen1 sentence1990People v. Davis, 768 P.2d 1227, 1229 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Dixon v. State Bd. of Optometric Examinersgreen2 sentences1980See Dixon v. State Board of Optometric Examiners, 39 Colo.App. 200 , 565 P.2d 960 (1977). 1980See Dixon v. State Board of Optometric Examiners, 39 Colo.App. 200 , 565 P.2d 960 (1977). | 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. Zimmermann
green
2 sentences1997In approving the board’s findings, however, the hearing panel modified the recommended period of suspension to two years for the following reasons: The panel approved the [hearing board’s] findings of fact but a modification of the recommendation of the hearing board, as follows: that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, because unlike the respondent in People v. Zimmermann, [ 922 P.2d 325 (Colo.1996) ], the respondent failed to maintain a trust account, ignored his client’s demands for payment, failed for more than a year to pay money due to his client, and, ins 1997In reaching its recommendation of suspension for one year and one day, rather than for a longer period, the hearing board relied on our decision in People v. Zimmermann, 922 P.2d 325 (Colo.1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lujan v. Colorado State Board of Education
green
2 sentences1996Id. 1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Hebenstreit
neutral
1 sentence1992In that case, we accepted “[w]ith some trepidation,” id. at 54 , the recommendation of the hearing panel that the respondent be suspended rather than disbarred. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Richards
green
1 sentence1988People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341 (Colo.1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.