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 3 courts 1893–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Weiss v. Salvation Armygreen2 sentences2018Packard v. Packard , 33 Colo.App. 308 , 519 P.2d 1221 , 1222 (1974) ; see also In re Bourquin's Estate , 84 Colo. 275 , 269 P. 903 , 904 (1928) (rejecting an argument that would require the court "to add an important qualification or exception to the statute which we have no right to do"). 2018Packard v. Packard , 33 Colo.App. 308 , 519 P.2d 1221 , 1222 (1974) ; see also In re Bourquin's Estate , 84 Colo. 275 , 269 P. 903 , 904 (1928) (rejecting an argument that would require the court "to add an important qualification or exception to the statute which we have no right to do"). | 1 | 3 |
People Ex Rel. Aelgreen1 sentence2026See People in Interest of A.E.L., 181 P.3d 1186, 1193 (Colo. App. 2008) (holding that caseworkers were properly qualified as experts based on their training and experience); see also A.F., ¶ 23 (“If a witness is sufficiently qualified to offer the proposed opinion, and the juvenile court so finds, any challenges to the witness’s qualifications go to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility.”). ¶ 15 Because the additional objections father raises on appeal were not presented to the juvenile court, we decline to address them. | 1 | 1 |
Simon v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1988The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. 7B C.R.S. (1984) (emphasis added). ‘“The rule is that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness he may be questioned as to misconduct, even as to collateral matters, which has a tendency to show his lack of honesty or truthfulness; the qualification of the rule being that the party questioning him is bound by his answers and may not contradict him with regard thereto.’ ” Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80, 85 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 412 , 1988The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. 7B C.R.S. (1984) (emphasis added). "`The rule is that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness he may be questioned as to misconduct, even as to collateral matters, which has a tendency to show his lack of honesty or truthfulness; the qualification of the rule being that the party questioning him is bound by his answers and may not contradict him with regard thereto.'" Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80, 85 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 412 , | 1 | 1 |
Pullman Co. v. Hallgreen2 sentences1988The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. 7B C.R.S. (1984) (emphasis added). ‘“The rule is that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness he may be questioned as to misconduct, even as to collateral matters, which has a tendency to show his lack of honesty or truthfulness; the qualification of the rule being that the party questioning him is bound by his answers and may not contradict him with regard thereto.’ ” Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80, 85 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 412 , 1988The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. 7B C.R.S. (1984) (emphasis added). "`The rule is that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness he may be questioned as to misconduct, even as to collateral matters, which has a tendency to show his lack of honesty or truthfulness; the qualification of the rule being that the party questioning him is bound by his answers and may not contradict him with regard thereto.'" Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80, 85 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 412 , | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Huntoon v. TCI Cablevision of Colorado, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008We have reinforced this liberal qualification standard by holding that a qualified expert witness need not "hold a specific degree, training certificate, accreditation, or membership in a professional organization." Id. 2008We have reinforced this liberal qualification standard by holding that a qualified expert witness need not "hold a specific degree, training certificate, accreditation, or membership in a professional organization." Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
United States v. State Of Colorado
green
1 sentence1995United States v. Colorado, 627 F.2d 217 (10th Cir.1980); U.S. Const. art. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
American Packing & Provision Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1988The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. 7B C.R.S. (1984) (emphasis added). ‘“The rule is that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness he may be questioned as to misconduct, even as to collateral matters, which has a tendency to show his lack of honesty or truthfulness; the qualification of the rule being that the party questioning him is bound by his answers and may not contradict him with regard thereto.’ ” Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80, 85 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 412 , 1988The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. 7B C.R.S. (1984) (emphasis added). "`The rule is that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness he may be questioned as to misconduct, even as to collateral matters, which has a tendency to show his lack of honesty or truthfulness; the qualification of the rule being that the party questioning him is bound by his answers and may not contradict him with regard thereto.'" Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80, 85 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 412 , | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hammond-Knowlton v. United States
green
2 sentences1988The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. 7B C.R.S. (1984) (emphasis added). ‘“The rule is that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness he may be questioned as to misconduct, even as to collateral matters, which has a tendency to show his lack of honesty or truthfulness; the qualification of the rule being that the party questioning him is bound by his answers and may not contradict him with regard thereto.’ ” Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80, 85 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 412 , 1988The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. 7B C.R.S. (1984) (emphasis added). "`The rule is that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness he may be questioned as to misconduct, even as to collateral matters, which has a tendency to show his lack of honesty or truthfulness; the qualification of the rule being that the party questioning him is bound by his answers and may not contradict him with regard thereto.'" Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80, 85 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 412 , | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Killoren v. National Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences1988The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. 7B C.R.S. (1984) (emphasis added). ‘“The rule is that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness he may be questioned as to misconduct, even as to collateral matters, which has a tendency to show his lack of honesty or truthfulness; the qualification of the rule being that the party questioning him is bound by his answers and may not contradict him with regard thereto.’ ” Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80, 85 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 412 , 1988The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. 7B C.R.S. (1984) (emphasis added). "`The rule is that for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness he may be questioned as to misconduct, even as to collateral matters, which has a tendency to show his lack of honesty or truthfulness; the qualification of the rule being that the party questioning him is bound by his answers and may not contradict him with regard thereto.'" Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80, 85 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694 , 62 S.Ct. 412 , | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Fulkerson v. Holmes
green
1 sentence1960Ed. 915 , 6 S.C. 780 , as follows: “* * * The proof to show pedigree forms a well settled exception to the rule which excludes hearsay evidence. * * * The rule is that declarations of deceased persons who were de jure related by blood or marriage to the family in question may be given in evidence in matters of pedigree. * * * A qualification of the rule is, that, before a declaration can be admitted in evidence, the relationship of the declarant with the family must be established by some proof independent of the declaration itself. * * * But it is evident that but slight proof of the relation | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Lee v. Registrar of Property of Humacao
green
1 sentence1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
In re Stewart's Estate
green
1 sentence1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Strong v. Dignan
neutral
2 sentences1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . 1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
In re Estate of Cotter
neutral
1 sentence1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Estate of Stevenson v. Roach
green
2 sentences1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . 1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
In re the Estate of Dorris
green
1 sentence1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Cross v. Reed
neutral
1 sentence1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
McLean v. Roller
neutral
2 sentences1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . 1928Estate of Cotter, 54 Cal. 215 ; In re Stevenson, 72 Cal. 164 , 13 Pac. 404 ; In re Dorris, 93 Cal. 611 , 29 Pac. 244 ; Strong v. Dignan, 207 Ill. 385 , 69 N. E. 909 ; In re Stewart’s Est., 18 Mont. 595 , 46 Pac. 806 ; McLean v. Roller, 33 Wash. 166 , 73 Pac. 1123 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
People ex rel. Williams v. Reid
neutral
1 sentence1922Another answer is that it was held, In re House Bill 38, 9 Colo. 631 , 21 Pac. 474 , and People, ex rel. v. Reid, 11 Colo. 138 , 17 Pac. 302 , that the expiration of a term to which a county treasurer had been elected created a vacancy which could be filled by appointment. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Bellefontaine Railway Co. v. Hunter
neutral
1 sentence1893Co. v. Hunter, 33 Ind. 335 ; Kansas Pac. | 1 | 1893–1893 |
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.