10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Board of County Commissioners v. Flickingergreen2 sentences2004Requirements for Obtaining a Public Road by Prescription The claimant of a prescriptive right for a public road across private property has the burden of proving compliance with the requirements for such a right by a preponderance of the evidence. [3] In Board of County Comm'rs v. Flickinger, 687 P.2d 975 (Colo. *409 1984), we construed section 43-2-201(1)(c) to require the claimant to meet a three-part test for the establishment of a public road by prescription: (1) members of the public must have used the road under a claim of right and in a manner adverse to the landowner's property interes 2004Under the first, we stated "members of the public must have used the road under a claim of right and in a manner adverse to the landowner's property interest." Flickinger, 687 P.2d at 980 . | 2 | 5 |
Littlefield v. Bambergergreen2 sentences2004McIntyre v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 86 P.3d 402 (Colo.2004)(clarifying that adversity and claim of right constitute separate requirements); Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Flickinger, 687 P.2d 975 (Colo.1984); State v. Cyphers, 74 P.3d 447 (Colo.App.2003); Littlefield v. Bamberger, 32 P.3d 615 (Colo.App.2001). 2003Littlefield v. Bamberger, 32 P.3d 615, 619 (Colo.App.2001). | 1 | 3 |
Sanchez-Rengifo v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2005Others explain the requirement by use of the “fork in the road test” under which, the dispositive issue is “whether there was any evidence that [the defendant] reached a ‘fork in the road, leading to a fresh impulse which resulted in a separate offense.” ’ Sanchez-Rengifo v. United States, 815 A.2d 351, 359 (D.C.2002) (explaining that the question is whether the defendant had time to reflect before embarking on a “new outrage”). | 1 | 1 |
Walter v. Hallgreen1 sentence2001Walter v. Hall, 940 P.2d 991, 995 (Colo.App.1996), aff'd, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Town of Silver Plume v. Hudsongreen2 sentences1984See Silver Plume v. Hudson, 151 Colo. 394, 400 , 380 P.2d 59, 62 (1963); People ex rel. 1984See Silver Plume v. Hudson, 151 Colo. 394, 400 , 380 P.2d 59, 62 (1963); People ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sprow v. Boston & Albany Railroad
green
2 sentences2004Co., 163 Mass. 330 , 39 N.E. 1024 (1895) (public must show that landowner had knowledge or reason to believe that public used the road under a claim of right). 2004Co., 163 Mass. 330 , 39 N.E. 1024 (1895) (public must show that landowner had knowledge or reason to believe that public used the road under a claim of right). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Bain v. Fry
green
2 sentences2004Bain v. Fry, 352 Mich. 299 , 89 N.W.2d 485 (1958) (use must be so open, hostile and notorious as to provide notice to the landowner that title to the land is denied). 2004Bain v. Fry, 352 Mich. 299 , 89 N.W.2d 485 (1958) (use must be so open, hostile and notorious as to provide notice to the landowner that title to the land is denied). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Simon v. Pettit
green
2 sentences2004Although *419 the majority points to the "and" combining claim of right and in a manner adverse in Flickinger , and a comma separating claim of right and adverse in Simon v. Pettit, 687 P.2d 1299 (Colo.1984), [1] I find more persuasive the manner in which we initially laid out those requirements in Flickinger . 2004Although the majority points to the “and” combining claim of right and in a manner adverse in Flickinger , and a comma separating claim of right and adverse in Simon v. Pettit, 687 P.2d 1299 (Colo.1984), 1 I find more persuasive the manner in which we initially laid out those requirements in Flickinger . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
McIntyre v. Board of County Commissioners
green
1 sentence2004McIntyre v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 86 P.3d 402 (Colo.2004)(clarifying that adversity and claim of right constitute separate requirements); Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Flickinger, 687 P.2d 975 (Colo.1984); State v. Cyphers, 74 P.3d 447 (Colo.App.2003); Littlefield v. Bamberger, 32 P.3d 615 (Colo.App.2001). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State, Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Commission v. Cyphers
green
1 sentence2004McIntyre v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 86 P.3d 402 (Colo.2004)(clarifying that adversity and claim of right constitute separate requirements); Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Flickinger, 687 P.2d 975 (Colo.1984); State v. Cyphers, 74 P.3d 447 (Colo.App.2003); Littlefield v. Bamberger, 32 P.3d 615 (Colo.App.2001). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Hall v. Walter
green
1 sentence2001Walter v. Hall, 940 P.2d 991, 995 (Colo.App.1996), aff'd, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo.1998). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Griffiths v. State of Colorado
green
1 sentence1995This instruction was derived from CJI-Civ.Sd 11:10 (1988) which states: “When vehicles collide, the law presumes ... that a driver who was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the collision was negligent.” See also Griffiths v. State, 725 P.2d 49 (Colo.App.1986) (wrong side of the road instruction proper under evidence showing driver lost control of his vehicle and crossed the center line of the highway); Dolan v. Mitchell, 179 Colo. 359 , 502 P.2d 72 (1972) (court erred in refusing to give wrong side of the road instruction when evidence supported defendant’s contention that plaintiff | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Dolan v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1995This instruction was derived from CJI-Civ.Sd 11:10 (1988) which states: “When vehicles collide, the law presumes ... that a driver who was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the collision was negligent.” See also Griffiths v. State, 725 P.2d 49 (Colo.App.1986) (wrong side of the road instruction proper under evidence showing driver lost control of his vehicle and crossed the center line of the highway); Dolan v. Mitchell, 179 Colo. 359 , 502 P.2d 72 (1972) (court erred in refusing to give wrong side of the road instruction when evidence supported defendant’s contention that plaintiff 1995This instruction was derived from CJI-Civ.Sd 11:10 (1988) which states: “When vehicles collide, the law presumes ... that a driver who was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the collision was negligent.” See also Griffiths v. State, 725 P.2d 49 (Colo.App.1986) (wrong side of the road instruction proper under evidence showing driver lost control of his vehicle and crossed the center line of the highway); Dolan v. Mitchell, 179 Colo. 359 , 502 P.2d 72 (1972) (court erred in refusing to give wrong side of the road instruction when evidence supported defendant’s contention that plaintiff | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Board of Cty. Com'n of Cty. of Delta v. Ogburn
green
2 sentences1984E.g., Silver Plume, 151 Colo. at 400 , 380 P.2d at 62 ; Ogburn, 38 Colo.App. at 214 , 554 P.2d at 701 . 1984E.g., Silver Plume, 151 Colo. at 400 , 380 P.2d at 62 ; Ogburn, 38 Colo.App. at 214 , 554 P.2d at 701 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.