close claim in Colorado

1967“In Commission v. Salardino, 138 Colo. 66 at page 70, the Supreme Court has said: Another source of guidance for the Board in performing its duties as licensing authority are the numerous pronouncements of this court, not all of which are easy of reconciliation.

1967“In Commission v. Salardino, 138 Colo. 66 at page 70, the Supreme Court has said: Another source of guidance for the Board in performing its duties as licensing authority are the numerous pronouncements of this court, not all of which are easy of reconciliation.

2008We granted Close's certiorari petition with regard to the limited proportionality question, but we denied his petition regarding complicity. 9 It is this petition that ultimately led to our opinion in Close III, 48 P.3d 528 (Colo.2002).

2008We granted Close's certiorari petition with regard to the limited proportionality question, but we denied his petition regarding complicity. [9] It is this petition that ultimately led to our opinion in Close III, 48 P.3d 528 (Colo.2002).

2008Should this Court reconsider the requirements of complicitor liability in the wake of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 [, 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 ] (2000) and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 [, 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 ] (1999)? [10] In his May 29, 2001 Rule 35(a) motion, Close challenged the constitutionality of the complicity instruction a third time, admitting that "The Juries [sic] convictions were based on, [sic] an assault was committed against six Japanese students and the defendant was one of the people who did it." [11] I would also find that Close's argument

2008Should this Court reconsider the requirements of complicitor liability in the wake of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 [, 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 ] (2000) and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 [, 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 ] (1999)? [10] In his May 29, 2001 Rule 35(a) motion, Close challenged the constitutionality of the complicity instruction a third time, admitting that "The Juries [sic] convictions were based on, [sic] an assault was committed against six Japanese students and the defendant was one of the people who did it." [11] I would also find that Close's argument

2008Should this Court reconsider the requirements of complicitor liability in the wake of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 [, 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 ] (2000) and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 [, 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 ] (1999)? [10] In his May 29, 2001 Rule 35(a) motion, Close challenged the constitutionality of the complicity instruction a third time, admitting that "The Juries [sic] convictions were based on, [sic] an assault was committed against six Japanese students and the defendant was one of the people who did it." [11] I would also find that Close's argument

2008Should this Court reconsider the requirements of complicitor liability in the wake of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 [, 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 ] (2000) and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 [, 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 ] (1999)? [10] In his May 29, 2001 Rule 35(a) motion, Close challenged the constitutionality of the complicity instruction a third time, admitting that "The Juries [sic] convictions were based on, [sic] an assault was committed against six Japanese students and the defendant was one of the people who did it." [11] I would also find that Close's argument

2008Should this Court reconsider the requirements of complicitor liability in the wake of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 [, 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 ] (2000) and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 [, 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 ] (1999)? [10] In his May 29, 2001 Rule 35(a) motion, Close challenged the constitutionality of the complicity instruction a third time, admitting that "The Juries [sic] convictions were based on, [sic] an assault was committed against six Japanese students and the defendant was one of the people who did it." [11] I would also find that Close's argument

2006One of those rules, as here, provided that “unless otherwise agreed by the parties or provided by law, arbitrators have thirty days from the close of the hearing to. make an award.” Ash Apartments, supra, 656 P.2d at 709 .

2001Out-of-period adjustments are those changes to costs, revenues, or investments that have "occurred or will occur, or [are] expected to occur after the close of the test year." Mountain States Tel. & Tel., 195 Colo. at 141 , 576 P.2d at 552 .

2001Out-of-period adjustments are those changes to costs, revenues, or investments that have "occurred or will occur, or [are] expected to occur after the close of the test year." Mountain States Tel. & Tel., 195 Colo. at 141 , 576 P.2d at 552 .

1995Therefore, the claims had “a more than incidental effect upon the manner in which the ERISA plan is administered in terms of disclosure requirements which could potentially interfere with the maintenance of a uniform body of federal regulation.” Houdek v. Mobil Oil Corp., supra, 879 P.2d at 423 .

1994See Berger v. Edgewater Steel Co., 911 F.2d 911 (3d Cir.1990); Anglund v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 828 F.Supp. 809 (D.Colo.1993).

1970Although this case was tried after the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , the rule in that case *343 giving the accused the right to be represented by counsel during a lineup identification is clearly inapplicable to the present case since the defendant was not a suspect at the time his picture was shown to Bernstein.

1970Although this case was tried after the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 , the rule in that case *343 giving the accused the right to be represented by counsel during a lineup identification is clearly inapplicable to the present case since the defendant was not a suspect at the time his picture was shown to Bernstein.

1938The straightening of the river did not cause the injury, and while it is possible that if the guard bank had been maintained in repair, it would have confined the water to the new channel, the state was under no obligation to maintain it to protect lands which would have been flooded to the same extent .if the improvement had not been made.” We are not unmindful of the fact that the case of Willson v. Boise City, 20 Ida. 133 , 117 Pac. 115 , cited by plaintiff, seems to announce a doctrine contrary to that promulgated in Stone v. State, supra, but upon a close analysis of the facts it appears

1938The straightening of the river did not cause the injury, and while it is possible that if the guard bank had been maintained in repair, it would have confined the water to the new channel, the state was under no obligation to maintain it to protect lands which would have been flooded to the same extent .if the improvement had not been made.” We are not unmindful of the fact that the case of Willson v. Boise City, 20 Ida. 133 , 117 Pac. 115 , cited by plaintiff, seems to announce a doctrine contrary to that promulgated in Stone v. State, supra, but upon a close analysis of the facts it appears