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 1961–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
McDonald v. Com. of Mass.green2 sentences2004Ass'n, 955 P2d 578 (Colo.App. 1997)(claim for benefits due because of a disability is not a claim for actionable discrimination under the ADA); accord McDonald v. Massachusetts, 901 F.Supp. 471 (D.Mass.1995)(workers' compensation claimant failed to state a claim under ADA where he argued entitlement to benefits on account of his disability). 1997McDonald v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 901 F.Supp. 471 (D.Mass.1995). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walder v. United States
green
2 sentences2021The Court held that the protection of the defendant 's Fourth Amendment right did not provide "justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government's disability to challenge his credibility." Id. ¶23 The Supreme Court revisited the impeachment exception in Havens . 2021The Court held that the protection of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right did not provide “justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government’s disability to challenge his credibility.” Id. ¶23 The Supreme Court revisited the impeachment exception in Havens. | 4 | 2014–2021 |
United States v. Havens
green
2 sentences2021After stressing the “importance of arriving at the truth in criminal trials, as well as the defendant’s obligation to speak the truth in response to proper questions,” Havens, 446 U.S. at 626 , the Court held that “a defendant’s statements made in response to proper cross-examination reasonably suggested by the defendant’s direct examination are subject to otherwise proper impeachment by the government, albeit by evidence that has been illegally obtained and that is inadmissible on the government’s direct case, or otherwise, as substantive evidence of guilt,” id. at 627–28. 11 ¶24 While Havens 2021After stressing the “importance of arriving at the truth in criminal trials, as well as the defendant’s obligation to speak the truth in response to proper questions,” Havens, 446 U.S. at 626 , the Court held that “a defendant’s statements made in response to proper cross-examination reasonably suggested by the defendant’s direct examination are subject to otherwise proper impeachment by the government, albeit by evidence that has been illegally obtained and that is inadmissible on the government’s direct case, or otherwise, as substantive evidence of guilt,” id. at 627–28. 11 ¶24 While Havens | 2 | 2021–2021 |
James v. Illinois
green
1 sentence2019In James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990), the defendant, a suspect in a murder, was arrested while sitting under a hair dryer in his mother’s beauty parlor. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Altamirano v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1990“The ultimate objective of the disability test is, by discounting these variables, to determine the wage that would have been paid in the open labor market under normal employment conditions to claimant as injured, taking wage levels, hours of work, and claimant’s age and state of training as of exactly the same period used for calculating actual wages earned before the injury.” (emphasis added) See also Gold Kist, Inc. v. Casey, 495 So.2d 1129 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Altamirano v. Industrial Commission, 22 Ariz.App. 379 , 527 P.2d 1096 (1974); Coty v. Town of Millinocket, 423 A.2d 524 (Me.1980). 1990“The ultimate objective of the disability test is, by discounting these variables, to determine the wage that would have been paid in the open labor market under normal employment conditions to claimant as injured, taking wage levels, hours of work, and claimant’s age and state of training as of exactly the same period used for calculating actual wages earned before the injury.” (emphasis added) See also Gold Kist, Inc. v. Casey, 495 So.2d 1129 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Altamirano v. Industrial Commission, 22 Ariz.App. 379 , 527 P.2d 1096 (1974); Coty v. Town of Millinocket, 423 A.2d 524 (Me.1980). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Coty v. Town of Millinocket
green
1 sentence1990“The ultimate objective of the disability test is, by discounting these variables, to determine the wage that would have been paid in the open labor market under normal employment conditions to claimant as injured, taking wage levels, hours of work, and claimant’s age and state of training as of exactly the same period used for calculating actual wages earned before the injury.” (emphasis added) See also Gold Kist, Inc. v. Casey, 495 So.2d 1129 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Altamirano v. Industrial Commission, 22 Ariz.App. 379 , 527 P.2d 1096 (1974); Coty v. Town of Millinocket, 423 A.2d 524 (Me.1980). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Gold Kist, Inc. v. Casey
green
1 sentence1990“The ultimate objective of the disability test is, by discounting these variables, to determine the wage that would have been paid in the open labor market under normal employment conditions to claimant as injured, taking wage levels, hours of work, and claimant’s age and state of training as of exactly the same period used for calculating actual wages earned before the injury.” (emphasis added) See also Gold Kist, Inc. v. Casey, 495 So.2d 1129 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Altamirano v. Industrial Commission, 22 Ariz.App. 379 , 527 P.2d 1096 (1974); Coty v. Town of Millinocket, 423 A.2d 524 (Me.1980). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Richardson v. Perales
green
2 sentences1989Perales, 402 U.S. at 402 , 91 S.Ct. at 1428 . 1989Perales, 402 U.S. at 402 , 91 S.Ct. at 1428 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Kuckler v. Whisler
green
1 sentence1978But the exception "specifically applies to all limitations of time contained in any of the statutes of the State of Colorado." Ball v. Industrial Commission, 30 Colo.App. 583 , 503 P.2d 1040 (1972), partially overruled on other grounds, Kuckler v. Whisler, Colo., 552 P.2d 18 (1976). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Ball v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1978But the exception "specifically applies to all limitations of time contained in any of the statutes of the State of Colorado." Ball v. Industrial Commission, 30 Colo.App. 583 , 503 P.2d 1040 (1972), partially overruled on other grounds, Kuckler v. Whisler, Colo., 552 P.2d 18 (1976). 1978But the exception "specifically applies to all limitations of time contained in any of the statutes of the State of Colorado." Ball v. Industrial Commission, 30 Colo.App. 583 , 503 P.2d 1040 (1972), partially overruled on other grounds, Kuckler v. Whisler, Colo., 552 P.2d 18 (1976). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. McMurry
neutral
2 sentences1961The benefits of these provisions shall not be allowed * * * if during any period for which such benefits are claimed the Insured has been engaged in any business or occupation for remuneration or profit.” In Guardian Life Insurance Company of America v. McMurry, 105 Colo. 11 , 94 P. (2d) 1086 , the court considered a provision of an insurance policy which conferred benefits upon the insured in the event of total and permanent disability, by which the insured was prevented “from performing any work or from following any occupation whatsoever for remuneration or profit * * * .” The court there s 1961The benefits of these provisions shall not be allowed * * * if during any period for which such benefits are claimed the Insured has been engaged in any business or occupation for remuneration or profit.” In Guardian Life Insurance Company of America v. McMurry, 105 Colo. 11 , 94 P. (2d) 1086 , the court considered a provision of an insurance policy which conferred benefits upon the insured in the event of total and permanent disability, by which the insured was prevented “from performing any work or from following any occupation whatsoever for remuneration or profit * * * .” The court there s | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.