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 1 courts 2000–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hagos v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2026Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63, ¶ 14 . ¶ 53 On appeal, Hunnicutt points to four instances where McAllister’s trial testimony was objectionable. 2025See Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63, ¶ 14 . | 1 | 2 |
People v. Allmangreen1 sentence2026See People v. Allman, 2012 COA 212, ¶ 13 (“Constitutional arguments must be explicitly raised in the trial court; implicit claims are unpreserved.”). ¶ 25 We review this contention for plain error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mersmangreen1 sentence2026Accordingly, we review this contention for plain error. ¶ 18 “[A] trial court does not commit plain error if it does not give a curative instruction sua sponte.” Van Meter, ¶ 10 (quoting People v. Mersman, 148 P.3d 199, 203 (Colo. App. 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ujaamagreen1 sentence2018People v. Ujaama, 2012 COA 36, ¶ 37 (noting that issues are unpreserved when the grounds raised on appeal are different from those raised below). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Banarkgreen1 sentence2018See People v. Banark, 155 P.3d 609, 611 (Colo. App. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Greenleeyellow1 sentence2018Although Gwinn’s opening brief argues that the improper impeachment and Exhibit 1 issues are connected, the impeachment issue concerned the sobriety examination form, while Exhibit 1 is the express consent affidavit and notice of revocation form. 12 People v. Greenlee, 200 P.3d 363, 366 (Colo. 2009); People v. Nuanez, 973 P.2d 1260, 1262-63 (Colo. 1999). ¶ 26 Because Gwinn argues for the first time on appeal that the court erroneously admitted Exhibit 1 under CRE 403, we review this contention for plain error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nuanezgreen1 sentence2018Although Gwinn’s opening brief argues that the improper impeachment and Exhibit 1 issues are connected, the impeachment issue concerned the sobriety examination form, while Exhibit 1 is the express consent affidavit and notice of revocation form. 12 People v. Greenlee, 200 P.3d 363, 366 (Colo. 2009); People v. Nuanez, 973 P.2d 1260, 1262-63 (Colo. 1999). ¶ 26 Because Gwinn argues for the first time on appeal that the court erroneously admitted Exhibit 1 under CRE 403, we review this contention for plain error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Eppensgreen2 sentences2008People v. Eppens, 979 P.2d 14, 18 (Colo.1999). 2008People v. Eppens, 979 P.2d 14, 18 (Colo.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2007See Wilson v. People, 743 P.2d 415, 419 (Colo.1987). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fishergreen1 sentence2003See People v. Fisher, supra. Hers, evidence supported defendant's theory that Jachnig fled for his own reasons and that she was in complete custody when he killed the officer. | 1 | 1 |
Woertman v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2000See Woertman v. People, 804 P.2d 188 (Colo.1991) (plain error is that which so undermines fundamental fairness of trial as to east doubt on the reliability of a defendant’s conviction). | 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 v. Rediger
green
1 sentence2018The Attorney General relied on People v. Rediger, 2015 2 COA 26 , ¶ 59 (Rediger I), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 2018 CO 32 (Rediger II). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.