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.
11 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Gregory McNeill United States of America v. Gregory McNeillgreen2 sentences2021Grace, 526 F.3d at 508 (quoting United States v. McNeill, 484 F.3d 301, 308 (4th Cir. 2007)). 2021Grace , 526 F.3d at 508 ( quoting United States v. McNeill , 484 F.3d 301, 308 ( 4th Cir. 2007 ) ) . | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Gracegreen2 sentences2021Grace, 526 F.3d at 508 (quoting United States v. McNeill, 484 F.3d 301, 308 (4th Cir. 2007)). 2021Grace , 526 F.3d at 508 ( quoting United States v. McNeill , 484 F.3d 301, 308 ( 4th Cir. 2007 ) ) . | 1 | 2 |
Cook v. Rockwell International Corp.green1 sentence2009Application The trial court relied on Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 151 F.R.D. 378, 383 (D.Colo.1993), in requiring only "some evidence of a reasonable relationship between the class boundaries and the spread of contamination." It then certified the contiguous property class, finding that "plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence that the class properties are contaminated for certification purposes," and that plaintiffs' expert evidence, which it found to be not "so flawed to be inadmissible," "show[led] some reasonable evidence that the contiguous properties are contaminated." Under the s | 1 | 1 |
Fraternal Order of Police, Colorado Lodge 27 v. City & County of Denvergreen1 sentence2006In Fraternal Order of Police, Colo. Lodge # 27 v. City & County of Denver, 914 P.2d 483, 486 (Colo.App.1995), aff'd on separate grounds 926 P.2d 582 (Colo.1996), a division of the court of appeals determined that deputy sheriffs need not be P.O.S.T. certified in order to meet the definition of "peace officer" under section There, the court of appeals noted that "consideration of a certification requirement as part of the definition of peace officer would be a circular process," and therefore concluded that "the certification requirement does not constitute a part of the referenced definition." | 1 | 1 |
cluster 696566green1 sentence2002Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 796 (3d Cir.1995)(“the settlement approval inquiry is far different from the certification inquiry”). | 1 | 1 |
City of Lakewood v. Bracegreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231, 245 (Colo.1996)(distin-guishing immunity from suit from defenses to liability). | 1 | 1 |
Ingram v. Coopergreen1 sentence1996See Ingram v. Cooper, 698 P.2d 1314 (Colo.1985) (statutory construction that leads to an absurd result will not be followed). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of Clintongreen1 sentence1989Clinton, 762 P.2d 1381, 1390 (Colo.1988). . | 1 | 1 |
Sisneros v. DIST. COURT IN & FOR TENTH JUD.green1 sentence1980See Sisneros v. District Court, Colo., 606 P.2d 55 (1980) (due process requires strict adherence to the statutory advisement procedure for short-term certification); Goedecke v. State Department of Institutions, Colo., 603 P.2d 123 (1979) (due process gives the subject of a certification hearing a right to a transcript at state expense for an appeal in forma pauperis). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Steiner v. Ideal Basic Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2002But see Steiner v. Ideal Basic Indus., Inc., 127 F.R.D. 192 (D.Colo.1987)(noting that the case had been handled in part as a class action because of a prior partial settlement). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People in Interest of King
green
1 sentence2013King, 795 P.2d at 274-75 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Johnson v. People
green
1 sentence2009Indeed, the information that defendant provided and the procedures that defendant employed in this case far exceeded those that our supreme court found insufficient in Johnson, 939 P.2d at 823 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In Re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation
green
1 sentence2009Because "[the district court may be persuaded by the testimony of either (or neither) party's expert with respect to whether a certification requirement is met," such testimony "should not be uncritically accepted as establishing a Rule 28 requirement merely because the court holds the testimony should not be excluded, under Daubert or for any other reason." In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, 552 F.3d at 323 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Benzing
green
1 sentence2009Our resolution is not foreclosed by the admonition in Benzing, 206 P.3d at 818 , that the trial court must avoid "prejudgl[ing] the merits of the case" at the class certification stage. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Fraternal Order of Police, Colorado Lodge 27 v. City & County of Denver
green
2 sentences2006In Fraternal Order of Police, Colo. Lodge # 27 v. City & County of Denver, 914 P.2d 483, 486 (Colo.App.1995), aff'd on separate grounds 926 P.2d 582 (Colo.1996), a division of the court of appeals determined that deputy sheriffs need not be P.O.S.T. certified in order to meet the definition of "peace officer" under section There, the court of appeals noted that "consideration of a certification requirement as part of the definition of peace officer would be a circular process," and therefore concluded that "the certification requirement does not constitute a part of the referenced definition." 2006In Fraternal Order of Police, Colo. Lodge # 27 v. City & County of Denver, 914 P.2d 483, 486 (Colo.App.1995), aff'd on separate grounds 926 P.2d 582 (Colo.1996), a division of the court of appeals determined that deputy sheriffs need not be P.O.S.T. certified in order to meet the definition of "peace officer" under section There, the court of appeals noted that "consideration of a certification requirement as part of the definition of peace officer would be a circular process," and therefore concluded that "the certification requirement does not constitute a part of the referenced definition." | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People
green
1 sentence1989Finally, the dissent reasoned that the right to a certification hearing within ten days after a request is made is primarily for the committed person’s protection, and thus “there is no valid reason why he cannot waive this right or, as here, consent to a delay.” Id. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Goedecke v. State, Dept. of Institutions
green
1 sentence1980See Sisneros v. District Court, Colo., 606 P.2d 55 (1980) (due process requires strict adherence to the statutory advisement procedure for short-term certification); Goedecke v. State Department of Institutions, Colo., 603 P.2d 123 (1979) (due process gives the subject of a certification hearing a right to a transcript at state expense for an appeal in forma pauperis). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.