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.
10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. City of Lakewoodgreen2 sentences1988Drawing on this court’s decision in Snyder v. City of Lakewood, 189 Colo. 421 , 542 P.2d 371 (1975), the court of appeals stated: The three factors which must exist in order to find that an inferior tribunal has acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity are: “1) A state or local law requiring that the body give adequate notice to the community before acting; 2) a state or local law requiring that the body conduct a public hearing, pursuant to notice, at which time concerned citizens must be given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and 3) a state or local law requiring the bo 1988Drawing on this court’s decision in Snyder v. City of Lakewood, 189 Colo. 421 , 542 P.2d 371 (1975), the court of appeals stated: The three factors which must exist in order to find that an inferior tribunal has acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity are: “1) A state or local law requiring that the body give adequate notice to the community before acting; 2) a state or local law requiring that the body conduct a public hearing, pursuant to notice, at which time concerned citizens must be given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and 3) a state or local law requiring the bo | 1 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dillon Companies, Inc. v. City of Boulder
green
2 sentences1975Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177 , 519 P.2d 325 (1974); Dillon Companies, Inc. v. Boulder, 183 Colo. 117 , 515 P.2d 627 (1973); Orchard Court Development Co. v. Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973); Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356 , 407 P.2d 325 (1965); Kizer v. Beck, 30 Colo. App. 569 , 496 P.2d 1062 (1972). 1975Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177 , 519 P.2d 325 (1974); Dillon Companies, Inc. v. Boulder, 183 Colo. 117 , 515 P.2d 627 (1973); Orchard Court Development Co. v. Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973); Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356 , 407 P.2d 325 (1965); Kizer v. Beck, 30 Colo. App. 569 , 496 P.2d 1062 (1972). | 2 | 1975–1975 |
Orchard Court Development Co. v. City of Boulder
green
2 sentences1975Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177 , 519 P.2d 325 (1974); Dillon Companies, Inc. v. Boulder, 183 Colo. 117 , 515 P.2d 627 (1973); Orchard Court Development Co. v. Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973); Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356 , 407 P.2d 325 (1965); Kizer v. Beck, 30 Colo. App. 569 , 496 P.2d 1062 (1972). 1975Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177 , 519 P.2d 325 (1974); Dillon Companies, Inc. v. Boulder, 183 Colo. 117 , 515 P.2d 627 (1973); Orchard Court Development Co. v. Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973); Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356 , 407 P.2d 325 (1965); Kizer v. Beck, 30 Colo. App. 569 , 496 P.2d 1062 (1972). | 2 | 1975–1975 |
City of Englewood v. Daily
green
2 sentences1975Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177 , 519 P.2d 325 (1974); Dillon Companies, Inc. v. Boulder, 183 Colo. 117 , 515 P.2d 627 (1973); Orchard Court Development Co. v. Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973); Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356 , 407 P.2d 325 (1965); Kizer v. Beck, 30 Colo. App. 569 , 496 P.2d 1062 (1972). 1975Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177 , 519 P.2d 325 (1974); Dillon Companies, Inc. v. Boulder, 183 Colo. 117 , 515 P.2d 627 (1973); Orchard Court Development Co. v. Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973); Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356 , 407 P.2d 325 (1965); Kizer v. Beck, 30 Colo. App. 569 , 496 P.2d 1062 (1972). | 2 | 1975–1975 |
Kizer v. Beck
neutral
2 sentences1975Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177 , 519 P.2d 325 (1974); Dillon Companies, Inc. v. Boulder, 183 Colo. 117 , 515 P.2d 627 (1973); Orchard Court Development Co. v. Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973); Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356 , 407 P.2d 325 (1965); Kizer v. Beck, 30 Colo. App. 569 , 496 P.2d 1062 (1972). 1975Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177 , 519 P.2d 325 (1974); Dillon Companies, Inc. v. Boulder, 183 Colo. 117 , 515 P.2d 627 (1973); Orchard Court Development Co. v. Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973); Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356 , 407 P.2d 325 (1965); Kizer v. Beck, 30 Colo. App. 569 , 496 P.2d 1062 (1972). | 2 | 1975–1975 |
City of Colorado Springs v. District Court
green
2 sentences1975Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177 , 519 P.2d 325 (1974); Dillon Companies, Inc. v. Boulder, 183 Colo. 117 , 515 P.2d 627 (1973); Orchard Court Development Co. v. Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973); Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356 , 407 P.2d 325 (1965); Kizer v. Beck, 30 Colo. App. 569 , 496 P.2d 1062 (1972). 1975Colorado Springs v. District Court, 184 Colo. 177 , 519 P.2d 325 (1974); Dillon Companies, Inc. v. Boulder, 183 Colo. 117 , 515 P.2d 627 (1973); Orchard Court Development Co. v. Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973); Englewood v. Daily, 158 Colo. 356 , 407 P.2d 325 (1965); Kizer v. Beck, 30 Colo. App. 569 , 496 P.2d 1062 (1972). | 2 | 1975–1975 |
Margolis v. District Court in & for the County of Arapahoe
green
2 sentences2004Court, 638 P.2d 297 (Colo.1981), where we held that the action of an agency will be deemed quasi-judicial for C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) purposes if: (1) a state or local law requires that the body give adequate notice to the community before acting; (2) a state or local law requires that the body conduct a public hearing, pursuant to notice, at which time concerned citizens must be given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and (3) a state or local law requires the body to make a determination by applying the facts of a specific case to certain criteria established by law. 2004Court, 638 P.2d 297 (Colo.1981), where we held that the action of an agency will be deemed quasi-judicial for C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) purposes if: (1) a state or local law requires that the body give adequate notice to the community before acting; (2) a state or local law requires that the body conduct a public hearing, pursuant to notice, at which time concerned citizens must be given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and (3) a state or local law requires the body to make a determination by applying the facts of a specific case to certain criteria established by law. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Cherry Hills Resort Development Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Village
neutral
1 sentence1988Drawing on this court’s decision in Snyder v. City of Lakewood, 189 Colo. 421 , 542 P.2d 371 (1975), the court of appeals stated: The three factors which must exist in order to find that an inferior tribunal has acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity are: “1) A state or local law requiring that the body give adequate notice to the community before acting; 2) a state or local law requiring that the body conduct a public hearing, pursuant to notice, at which time concerned citizens must be given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and 3) a state or local law requiring the bo | 1 | 1988–1988 |