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 1990–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Converse v. Zinkegreen2 sentences2024Cf. Converse v. Zinke, 635 P.2d 882 , 8 86 (Colo. 1981) (applying the unique circumstances doctrine). ¶ 15 At any rate, Bowles is inapposite. 2009The unique circumstances exception applies "if a party reasonably relies and acts upon an erroneous or misleading statement or ruling by the trial court." A.J.H., 134 P.3d at 531 (quoting Converse, 635 P.2d at 886 ). | 5 | 8 |
PH v. People in Interest of SHgreen2 sentences2024We needn’t decide whether we agree because we conclude, at any rate, that Ybarra hasn’t established unique circumstances. 12 ¶ 23 For instance, in P.H. v. People in Interest of S.H., our supreme court applied the unique circumstances doctrine to allow an untimely appeal because the case “involv[ed] fundamental values” concerning termination of parental rights and the late filing was a “direct result of [the appellant’s] reliance on an erroneous trial court ruling purporting to extend the [appeal] deadline,” which the trial court lacked authority to do. 814 P.2d 909, 912 (Colo. 1991). ¶ 24 Here 2016The supreme court reversed a division of this court that had dismissed the appeal, stating that the dismissal was “not consistent with the unique circumstances doctrine.” Id. ¶31 In People in Interest of A.J.H. , 134 P.3d 528, 531-33 (Colo. App. 2006), a trial court misled the appellant’s counsel in another termination of parental rights case, which, like P.H. , involved a parent’s fundamental liberty interest. | 3 | 7 |
People Ex Rel. Ajhgreen2 sentences2024Id. 2 At least one division of this court has held that the unique circumstances doctrine cannot apply to cases that are filed past the deadline for accepting an appeal under the excusable neglect provision. 2024Among the reasons the division cited supporting its decision were that the case didn’t involve a fundamental liberty interest or an “extreme situation.” Id. at ¶¶ 39- 40, 42 (quoting A.J.H., 134 P.3d at 531 ). ¶ 28 Although we sympathize with Ybarra’s predicament in losing his appeal rights because of his attorney’s apparent confusion 15 about the effect of his post-trial filings, we, like the division in Heotis, conclude that the unique circumstances doctrine cannot be extended to apply to the situation before us. | 3 | 6 |
Bowles v. Russellgreen2 sentences2024Moreover , mother does not provide, and we have not found, any legal authority holding that a finding of excusable neglect is the only basis on which a district court may properly exercise its discretion to accept an untimely petition for review. ¶ 14 Next , c iting Bowles v. Russel , 551 U.S. 205 (2007), mother argues that a district court can not accept a late petition for review 8 based on the unique circumstances doctrine because the Unit ed States Supreme Court has rejected this doctrine. 2024There, t he United States Supreme Court decided that the unique circumstances doctrine could not be invoked to excuse the late filing of a n otice of appeal because courts do not have the authority to “create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements .” Bowles , 551 U.S. at 214. | 3 | 5 |
In Re CABLgreen2 sentences2024Thus, this case is nothing like C.A.B.L., where the appellant relied on erroneous advice from a magistrate who told her that she could appeal by filing a petition for review with the district court when, in actuality, the appeal needed to be filed with this court. 221 P.3d at 440-41 . ¶ 27 Indeed, divisions of this court have declined to apply the unique circumstances doctrine in similar circumstances. 2024Among the reasons the division cited supporting its decision were that the case didn’t involve a fundamental liberty interest or an “extreme situation.” Id. at ¶¶ 39- 40, 42 (quoting A.J.H., 134 P.3d at 531 ). ¶ 28 Although we sympathize with Ybarra’s predicament in losing his appeal rights because of his attorney’s apparent confusion 15 about the effect of his post-trial filings, we, like the division in Heotis, conclude that the unique circumstances doctrine cannot be extended to apply to the situation before us. | 3 | 4 |
Weason v. Colorado Court of Appealsgreen2 sentences2006See also Weason v. Colo. Court of Appeals, 731 P.2d 736 (Colo.1987)(applying unique circumstances doctrine to conclude that court of appeals erred by dismissing appeal in criminal case for failure to seek extension or establish excusable neglect within extended seventy-five day period allowed by C.A.R. 4(b), because the error was caused by the trial court's late appointment of counsel). 2006See also Weason v. Colo. Court of Appeals, 731 P.2d 736 (Colo.1987)(applying unique circumstances doctrine to conclude that court of appeals erred by dismissing appeal in criminal case for failure to seek extension or establish excusable neglect within extended seventy-five day period allowed by C.A.R. 4(b), because the error was caused by the trial court’s late appointment of counsel). | 2 | 2 |
Campbell, Jr. v. McGillgreen1 sentence2024Colorado courts have held that a request for an extension of time to file a Rule 59 motion is not itself a Rule 59 motion, see Campbell v. McGill, 810 P.2d 199, 200 (Colo. 1991), and that a Rule 59 motion doesn’t toll the deadline to appeal a magistrate’s order entered where consent was necessary, see In re Marriage of James, 2023 COA 51 , ¶ 24. | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of the Petition of Heotis v. Colorado Department of Educationgreen1 sentence2024See Heotis v. Colo. Dep’t of Educ., 2016 COA 6 , ¶¶ 32-38. | 1 | 1 |
People in Interest of EHgreen1 sentence2020See E.H., 837 P.2d at 287 (concluding that a mother should have raised her claims of error arising from the adjudicatory hearing in a timely appeal from the adjudication decrees); cf. People in Interest of A.J., 143 P.3d 1143 , 1148–50 (Colo. App. 2006) (concluding that when a mother timely communicated to her counsel her decision to appeal the termination of her parental rights and counsel did not timely perfect such an appeal, mother had established good cause for extending or suspending the filing deadline); People in Interest of A.J.H., 134 P.3d 528 , 531–32 (Colo. App. 2006) (concluding t | 1 | 1 |
Howard James Moore v. South Carolina Labor Boardgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 | 1 | 1 |
Hillen v. Colorado Compensation Insurance Authoritygreen1 sentence2009Auth., 883 P.2d 586, 587 (Colo.App.1994) ("The filing of a notice of appeal within the time limits established by C.A.R. 4(a) is mandatory and jurisdictional."). *439 In certain limited circumstances, this court may apply the unique circumstances doctrine to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Charles E. Willis v. Lansome Newsome, Wardengreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 | 1 | 1 |
Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corporationgreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 | 1 | 1 |
cluster 797505green2 sentences2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 | 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 Ex Rel. Aj
green
1 sentence2020See E.H., 837 P.2d at 287 (concluding that a mother should have raised her claims of error arising from the adjudicatory hearing in a timely appeal from the adjudication decrees); cf. People in Interest of A.J., 143 P.3d 1143 , 1148–50 (Colo. App. 2006) (concluding that when a mother timely communicated to her counsel her decision to appeal the termination of her parental rights and counsel did not timely perfect such an appeal, mother had established good cause for extending or suspending the filing deadline); People in Interest of A.J.H., 134 P.3d 528 , 531–32 (Colo. App. 2006) (concluding t | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Schwartz v. Pridy
green
2 sentences2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney
green
2 sentences2009In its traditional formulation, the unique circumstances doctrine applies "only where a party has performed an act which, if properly done, would postpone the deadline for filing his appeal and has received specific assurance by a judicial officer that this act has been properly done." Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 179 , 109 S.Ct. 987 , 103 L.Ed.2d 146 (1989). 2009In its traditional formulation, the unique circumstances doctrine applies "only where a party has performed an act which, if properly done, would postpone the deadline for filing his appeal and has received specific assurance by a judicial officer that this act has been properly done." Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 179 , 109 S.Ct. 987 , 103 L.Ed.2d 146 (1989). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc.
red
2 sentences2009Because this Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements, use of the `unique circumstances' doctrine is illegitimate." In so holding, the Court overruled Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962), on which our supreme court relied in adopting the unique circumstances exception, and Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam), "to the extent they purport to authorize an exception to a jurisdictional rule." Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214 , 127 S.Ct. 2360 ; accor 2009Because this Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements, use of the `unique circumstances' doctrine is illegitimate." In so holding, the Court overruled Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962), on which our supreme court relied in adopting the unique circumstances exception, and Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam), "to the extent they purport to authorize an exception to a jurisdictional rule." Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214 , 127 S.Ct. 2360 ; accor | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
green
2 sentences2009Because this Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements, use of the `unique circumstances' doctrine is illegitimate." In so holding, the Court overruled Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962), on which our supreme court relied in adopting the unique circumstances exception, and Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam), "to the extent they purport to authorize an exception to a jurisdictional rule." Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214 , 127 S.Ct. 2360 ; accor 2009Because this Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements, use of the `unique circumstances' doctrine is illegitimate." In so holding, the Court overruled Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962), on which our supreme court relied in adopting the unique circumstances exception, and Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384 , 84 S.Ct. 397 , 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam), "to the extent they purport to authorize an exception to a jurisdictional rule." Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214 , 127 S.Ct. 2360 ; accor | 1 | 2009–2009 |
SN Servicing Corp. v. Kloza
green
2 sentences2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 2009See, e.g., In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933 , 940 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Under the doctrine of unique circumstances, a party's untimeliness in appealing an order may be excused if the party relied on the specific assurances of a court that the appeal would be timely."); In re Kloza, 222 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 , 2007 WL 313513 (9th Cir.2007) ("Unique circumstances will excuse an untimely notice of appeal only if the bankruptcy court explicitly extended the deadline for appeal and if a judicial officer has specifically assured an appellant that the appeal would be timely."); Feldberg v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 4 | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dill v. General American Life Insurance
green
1 sentence2009Co., 525 F.3d 612 , 620 & n. 12 (8th Cir.2008); cf. 16A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.