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 1999–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hogangreen1 sentence2013Court, 668 P.2d 3, 8 (Colo.1983) (the psychotherapist-patient privilege applies to "not only testimonial disclosures in court but also pretrial discovery of information within the seope of the privilege"); see also People v. Sisneros, 55 P.3d 797, 800 (Colo.2002) ("Once it attaches, the psychologist-patient privilege protects testimonial disclosures as well as pretrial discovery of files or records derived or created in the course of the treatment."); accord People v. Hogan, 114 P.3d 42, 54 (Colo.App.2004); cf. Petro-Lewis Corp. v. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sisnerosgreen1 sentence2013Court, 668 P.2d 3, 8 (Colo.1983) (the psychotherapist-patient privilege applies to "not only testimonial disclosures in court but also pretrial discovery of information within the seope of the privilege"); see also People v. Sisneros, 55 P.3d 797, 800 (Colo.2002) ("Once it attaches, the psychologist-patient privilege protects testimonial disclosures as well as pretrial discovery of files or records derived or created in the course of the treatment."); accord People v. Hogan, 114 P.3d 42, 54 (Colo.App.2004); cf. Petro-Lewis Corp. v. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Petro-Lewis Corp. v. District Court, Fourth Judicial District, El Paso Countygreen1 sentence2013Court, 727 P.2d 41, 43 (Colo.1986) ("The testimonial [marital] privilege applies to in-court testimony, as well as depositions, interrogatories, requests for admissions, and other forms of testimonial discovery."). 1 23 "Testimonial" refers to evidence given under oath or affirmation at trial or in an affidavit or deposition. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. District Court, Second Judicial District, City & County of Denvergreen1 sentence2013Court, 668 P.2d 3, 8 (Colo.1983) (the psychotherapist-patient privilege applies to "not only testimonial disclosures in court but also pretrial discovery of information within the seope of the privilege"); see also People v. Sisneros, 55 P.3d 797, 800 (Colo.2002) ("Once it attaches, the psychologist-patient privilege protects testimonial disclosures as well as pretrial discovery of files or records derived or created in the course of the treatment."); accord People v. Hogan, 114 P.3d 42, 54 (Colo.App.2004); cf. Petro-Lewis Corp. v. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Bond v. DIST. CT., IN AND FOR DENVER CTY.green1 sentence2013See Bond, 682 P.2d at 40 (applying balancing test to determine the seope of a waiver of privilege). | 1 | 1 |
Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C.green1 sentence2009Miller, 207 P.3d at 932 ; People v. Sorrendino, 37 P.3d 501, 504 (Colo.App.2001); see Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 35-36 (Colo.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Town of Alma v. AZCO Construction, Inc.green1 sentence2009See Town of Alma, 10 P.3d at 1263 & n. 10. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sorrendinogreen1 sentence2009Miller, 207 P.3d at 932 ; People v. Sorrendino, 37 P.3d 501, 504 (Colo.App.2001); see Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 35-36 (Colo.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Bernal v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2007Bernal v. People, 44 P.3d 184, 198 (Colo.2002) ("Appellate review of a possible Confrontation Clause violation is de novo."). | 1 | 1 |
Ainscough v. Owensgreen1 sentence2007See Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851, 855-56 (Colo. 2004) (standing is a threshold issue that must be resolved before addressing merits and is reviewed de novo); CF&I Steel Corp. v. Colo. Air Pollution Control Comm'n, 199 Colo. 270, 274 , 610 P.2d 85, 88 (1980) (approving sua sponte consideration of standing issue). | 1 | 1 |
CF&I Steel Corp. v. Colorado Air Pollution Control Commissiongreen2 sentences2007See Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851, 855-56 (Colo. 2004) (standing is a threshold issue that must be resolved before addressing merits and is reviewed de novo); CF&I Steel Corp. v. Colo. Air Pollution Control Comm'n, 199 Colo. 270, 274 , 610 P.2d 85, 88 (1980) (approving sua sponte consideration of standing issue). 2007See Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851, 855-56 (Colo. 2004) (standing is a threshold issue that must be resolved before addressing merits and is reviewed de novo); CF&I Steel Corp. v. Colo. Air Pollution Control Comm'n, 199 Colo. 270, 274 , 610 P.2d 85, 88 (1980) (approving sua sponte consideration of standing issue). | 1 | 1 |
Corsentino v. Cordovagreen1 sentence2002See Corsentino v. Cordova, 4 P.3d 1082, 1086 (Colo.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City & County of Denver Ex Rel. Board of Water Commissioners v. Gallegosgreen1 sentence1999Walton v. State, 968 P.2d 636 (Colo.1998); but see City & County of Denver v. Gallegos, 916 P.2d 509 (Colo.1996) (waiver provisions must be narrowly interpreted); Plummer v. Little, 987 P.2d 871 (Colo.App.1999) cert. granted, October 18, 1999, (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baker v. Carr
green
1 sentence2009In conjunction with its goals of narrowing and focusing the seope of the doctrine, the Court stressed that a court should dismiss a case if any one of the factors become "inextricable from the case at bar." Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Miller v. Brannon
green
1 sentence2009Miller, 207 P.3d at 932 ; People v. Sorrendino, 37 P.3d 501, 504 (Colo.App.2001); see Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 35-36 (Colo.2000). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers and Contractors, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009In support of that contention, Ha-mon relies, at the outset, on the court's observation in Town of Alma that certain types of cases are outside the seope of the rule and its citation for this proposition of two cases that involved fraud claims, Brody v. Bock, 897 P.2d 769 (Colo.1995), and Formosa Plasties Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.1998). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Brody v. Bock
green
1 sentence2009In support of that contention, Ha-mon relies, at the outset, on the court's observation in Town of Alma that certain types of cases are outside the seope of the rule and its citation for this proposition of two cases that involved fraud claims, Brody v. Bock, 897 P.2d 769 (Colo.1995), and Formosa Plasties Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.1998). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hawkins v. District Court in & for the Fourth Judicial District
green
2 sentences2007In Hawkins v. District Court, 638 P.2d 1372 (Colo.1982), we set forth the standard to be applied in determining whether materials prepared during an insurance company's investigation of a claim fall within the seope of this privilege. 2007We stated that the question was "whether, in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the party resisting discovery demonstrates that the document was prepared or obtained in contemplation of specific litigation." Id. at 1379 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Walton v. State
green
1 sentence1999Walton v. State, 968 P.2d 636 (Colo.1998); but see City & County of Denver v. Gallegos, 916 P.2d 509 (Colo.1996) (waiver provisions must be narrowly interpreted); Plummer v. Little, 987 P.2d 871 (Colo.App.1999) cert. granted, October 18, 1999, (same). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Plummer v. Little
green
1 sentence1999Walton v. State, 968 P.2d 636 (Colo.1998); but see City & County of Denver v. Gallegos, 916 P.2d 509 (Colo.1996) (waiver provisions must be narrowly interpreted); Plummer v. Little, 987 P.2d 871 (Colo.App.1999) cert. granted, October 18, 1999, (same). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.