10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jamie Edward Byrdgreen1 sentence2014See Byrd, 403 F.3d at 1282-83 (indicating that a defendant's knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to testify weighs against granting the motion to reopen evidence, and that a defendant who waives the right has not been "denied" the right to testify in his own behalf). 154 The court should consider whether the advisement and waiver occurred at the beginning of the defense case, sometime during the presentation of defense evidence, or after all other defense witnesses have testified. | 1 | 1 |
O'Neil v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2000See People v. Baca, 198 Colo. 9 , 11 n. 1, 562 P.2d 411 , 412 n. 1 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bacagreen1 sentence2000See People v. Baca, 198 Colo. 9 , 11 n. 1, 562 P.2d 411 , 412 n. 1 (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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re: Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting Rights of the Public to Uninterrupted Service by Public Employees of 1980
green
2 sentences1982In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting the Rights of the Public to Uninterrupted Service by Public Employees of 1980, supra. See Part III, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the Initiative Title Setting Review Board denying the Petitioners’ motion for rehearing. 1982In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting the Rights of the Public to Uninterrupted Service by Public Employees of 1980, supra. See Part III, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the Initiative Title Setting Review Board denying the Petitioners' motion for rehearing. | 2 | 1982–1982 |
People ex rel. Seeley v. May
green
2 sentences1968Seeley v. May, 9 Colo. 80, 85 , 10 P. 641 , 643: “We place at the beginning of the inquiry . . . what we regard as the leading and controlling rule which is to guide us in this case. 1968Seeley v. May, 9 Colo. 80, 85 , 10 P. 641 , 643: “We place at the beginning of the inquiry . . . what we regard as the leading and controlling rule which is to guide us in this case. | 2 | 1968–1968 |
Tarco, Inc. v. Conifer Metropolitan District
green
1 sentence2015Dist ., 2013 COA 60 , ¶14. ¶65       The district court noted at the beginning of the hearing that the parties stipulated to the admission of all of the filed documents and exhibits. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Department of Health v. Donahue
green
1 sentence2014"A waiver may be explicit, as when a party orally or in writing abandons an existing right or privilege; or it may be implied, as, for example, when a party engages in conduct which manifests an intent to relinquish the right or privilege, or acts inconsistently with its assertion." Id. ¶ 13 The CUAA allows a party to contest an arbitration award if "[t]here was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated in the arbitration proceeding without raising the objection under section 13-22-215(3) not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing." § 13-22-223(1)(e) (emphasis adde | 1 | 2014–2014 |
New Jersey v. Portash
green
2 sentences2009Subsequently, in New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U.S. 450, 455-56 , 99 S.Ct. 1292 , 59 L.Ed.2d 501 (1979), the Court explained that the Tennessee statute violated defendants' Fifth Amendment rights because it penalized them for asserting the right to remain silent at the beginning of the defense case by excluding them from testifying later in the trial. 2009Subsequently, in New Jersey v. Portash, 440 U.S. 450, 455-56 , 99 S.Ct. 1292 , 59 L.Ed.2d 501 (1979), the Court explained that the Tennessee statute violated defendants' Fifth Amendment rights because it penalized them for asserting the right to remain silent at the beginning of the defense case by excluding them from testifying later in the trial. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Johnson v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR JEFFERSON
green
1 sentence1984The facts alleged in the affidavit must not be based on “mere ‘suspicion, surmise, speculation, rationalization, conjecture, [or] innuendo’;” nor may the allegations be “ ‘statements of mere conclusions of the pleader’.” Johnson v. District Court, supra. Here, the affidavit of defendant’s counsel alleged, for example: "From the very beginning of the hearing [the judge] exhibited an extraordinary impatience and animosity toward [defendant, her counsel and her position], [The judge] consistently ridiculed questions asked, comments made and objections made by Defendant’s counsel. [The judge] inte | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.