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.
12 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 3 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. Walkergreen2 sentences2024People v. Smith, slip op. at 8 (Colo. App. No. 12CA1742, Aug. 14, 2014) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)); see People v. Walker, 2014 CO 6, ¶ 13 . 2022See People v. Montoya, 251 P.3d 35, 46 (Colo. App. 2010), overruled on other grounds by People v. Walker, 2014 CO 6 ; People in Interest of T.D., 140 P.3d 205, 210-12 (Colo. App. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010); see also Duff v. Lee, 439 P.3d 1199, 1205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019) (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court’s adoption of a rule doesn’t constitute a determination that it is valid and constitutional against any challenge and affirming the Arizona Court of Appeals’ power to determine the constitutionality of such a rule), aff’d in | 3 | 3 |
People Ex Rel. Tdgreen2 sentences2022See People v. Montoya, 251 P.3d 35, 46 (Colo. App. 2010), overruled on other grounds by People v. Walker, 2014 CO 6 ; People in Interest of T.D., 140 P.3d 205, 210-12 (Colo. App. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010); see also Duff v. Lee, 439 P.3d 1199, 1205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019) (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court’s adoption of a rule doesn’t constitute a determination that it is valid and constitutional against any challenge and affirming the Arizona Court of Appeals’ power to determine the constitutionality of such a rule), aff’d in 2010We have jurisdiction to address a challenge to the constitutionality of a rule promulgated by the Colorado Supreme Court, see People in Interest of T.D., 140 P.3d 205, 210-11 (Colo.App.2006), but defendant did not raise this constitutional issue in the trial court, and we normally do not consider such issues for the first time on appeal. | 2 | 2 |
Duff v. Leegreen1 sentence2022See People v. Montoya, 251 P.3d 35, 46 (Colo. App. 2010), overruled on other grounds by People v. Walker, 2014 CO 6 ; People in Interest of T.D., 140 P.3d 205, 210-12 (Colo. App. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010); see also Duff v. Lee, 439 P.3d 1199, 1205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019) (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court’s adoption of a rule doesn’t constitute a determination that it is valid and constitutional against any challenge and affirming the Arizona Court of Appeals’ power to determine the constitutionality of such a rule), aff’d in | 1 | 1 |
Claudia Duff v. Hon. lee/tucson Policegreen1 sentence2022See People v. Montoya, 251 P.3d 35, 46 (Colo. App. 2010), overruled on other grounds by People v. Walker, 2014 CO 6 ; People in Interest of T.D., 140 P.3d 205, 210-12 (Colo. App. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010); see also Duff v. Lee, 439 P.3d 1199, 1205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019) (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court’s adoption of a rule doesn’t constitute a determination that it is valid and constitutional against any challenge and affirming the Arizona Court of Appeals’ power to determine the constitutionality of such a rule), aff’d in | 1 | 1 |
People v. Montoyagreen1 sentence2022See People v. Montoya, 251 P.3d 35, 46 (Colo. App. 2010), overruled on other grounds by People v. Walker, 2014 CO 6 ; People in Interest of T.D., 140 P.3d 205, 210-12 (Colo. App. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010); see also Duff v. Lee, 439 P.3d 1199, 1205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019) (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court’s adoption of a rule doesn’t constitute a determination that it is valid and constitutional against any challenge and affirming the Arizona Court of Appeals’ power to determine the constitutionality of such a rule), aff’d in | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. Modern Tractor & Supply Co.green1 sentence2010See Modern Tractor, 839 S.W.2d at 653 ; Sturmfels Farm, 795 S.W.2d at 588 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence2010See People v. Brown, 70 P.3d 489, 494 (Colo.App.2002); cf. People v. Shepherd, 48 P.3d 693 , 701 (Colo.App.2001) (an appellate court will not consider constitutional challenges to statutes raised for the first time on appeal); but see People v. Tillery, 231 P.3d 36, 47 (Colo.App.2009) (reviewing the defendant's unpreserved double jeopardy error and supplemental assertions for plain error under Crim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Genningsgreen2 sentences1995See Gennings, 808 P.2d at 844 . 1995See Gennings, 808 P.2d at 844 . | 1 | 1 |
cluster 390329green2 sentences1985However, we agree with those courts that have found the dismissal of the appeal in Kirkpatrick ambiguous or inconclusive on the issue of the constitutionality of the presumption challenged here. 21 E.g., Red Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance, 648 F.2d 1020, 1031 (5th Cir.1981) (discerning no “definitive guidance” from the Supreme Court’s dismissal); State v. Bumanglag, 63 Hawaii 596 , 634 P.2d 80 (1981). 1985However, we agree with those courts that have found the dismissal of the appeal in Kirkpatrick ambiguous or inconclusive on the issue of the constitutionality of the presumption challenged here. [21] E.g., Red Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance, 648 F.2d 1020, 1031 (5th Cir.1981) (discerning no "definitive guidance" from the Supreme Court's dismissal); State v. Bumanglag, 63 Hawaii 596 , 634 P.2d 80 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sherman v. Stategreen2 sentences2006But see Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489, 494 (Tex.App.1999)(refusing to address challenge to the constitutionality of a rule promulgated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's court of last resort for criminal appeals, stating: "As an intermediate appellate court, we are not the appropriate forum to do so."). 2006But see Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489, 494 (Tex.App.1999)(refusing to address challenge to the constitutionality of a rule promulgated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s court of last resort for criminal appeals, stating: “As an intermediate appellate court, we are not the appropriate forum to do so.”). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Tillerygreen1 sentence2010See People v. Brown, 70 P.3d 489, 494 (Colo.App.2002); cf. People v. Shepherd, 48 P.3d 693 , 701 (Colo.App.2001) (an appellate court will not consider constitutional challenges to statutes raised for the first time on appeal); but see People v. Tillery, 231 P.3d 36, 47 (Colo.App.2009) (reviewing the defendant's unpreserved double jeopardy error and supplemental assertions for plain error under Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Meek
neutral
2 sentences2006In State v. Meek, 8 Ariz.App. 261 , 445 P.2d 463 (1968), a majority of the Arizona Court of Appeals held that, as an intermediate appellate court, it lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of rules promulgated by the Arizona Supreme Court. 2006In State v. Meek, 8 Ariz.App. 261 , 445 P.2d 463 (1968), a majority of the Arizona Court of Appeals held that, as an intermediate appellate court, it lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of rules promulgated by the Arizona Supreme Court. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People ex rel. A.J.L.
green
1 sentence2022See People v. Montoya, 251 P.3d 35, 46 (Colo. App. 2010), overruled on other grounds by People v. Walker, 2014 CO 6 ; People in Interest of T.D., 140 P.3d 205, 210-12 (Colo. App. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by People in Interest of A.J.L., 243 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2010); see also Duff v. Lee, 439 P.3d 1199, 1205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019) (noting that the Arizona Supreme Court’s adoption of a rule doesn’t constitute a determination that it is valid and constitutional against any challenge and affirming the Arizona Court of Appeals’ power to determine the constitutionality of such a rule), aff’d in | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State Ex Rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. Sturmfels Farm Ltd. Partnership
green
1 sentence2010See Modern Tractor, 839 S.W.2d at 653 ; Sturmfels Farm, 795 S.W.2d at 588 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Ferguson
green
1 sentence1997In re Ferguson, supra. We do not, therefore, find that decision either persuasive or controlling as to the issue before us here. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Howell v. Woodlin School District R-104
green
2 sentences1985The People, relying upon Howell v. Woodlin School District R-104, 198 Colo. 40 , 596 P.2d 56 (1979), argue that the trial court acted within its discretion in ruling on the facial constitutionality of the statutory prayer defense because the constitutionality of that defense was implicitly involved in the resolution of the case. 1985The People, relying upon Howell v. Woodlin School District R-104, 198 Colo. 40 , 596 P.2d 56 (1979), argue that the trial court acted within its discretion in ruling on the facial constitutionality of the statutory prayer defense because the constitutionality of that defense was implicitly involved in the resolution of the case. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Bumanglag
green
2 sentences1985However, we agree with those courts that have found the dismissal of the appeal in Kirkpatrick ambiguous or inconclusive on the issue of the constitutionality of the presumption challenged here. 21 E.g., Red Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance, 648 F.2d 1020, 1031 (5th Cir.1981) (discerning no “definitive guidance” from the Supreme Court’s dismissal); State v. Bumanglag, 63 Hawaii 596 , 634 P.2d 80 (1981). 1985However, we agree with those courts that have found the dismissal of the appeal in Kirkpatrick ambiguous or inconclusive on the issue of the constitutionality of the presumption challenged here. 21 E.g., Red Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance, 648 F.2d 1020, 1031 (5th Cir.1981) (discerning no “definitive guidance” from the Supreme Court’s dismissal); State v. Bumanglag, 63 Hawaii 596 , 634 P.2d 80 (1981). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. McClendon
green
2 sentences1981The constitutionality of an instruction similar to the one given here was upheld in People v. McClendon, 188 Colo. 140 , 533 P.2d 923 (1975). 1981The constitutionality of an instruction similar to the one given here was upheld in People v. McClendon, 188 Colo. 140 , 533 P.2d 923 (1975). | 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.