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 1984–2026 6 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. Wiedemergreen2 sentences2024People v. Chavez-Torres, 2019 CO 59, ¶ 13 (citing People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424 , 440 n.15 (Colo. 1993)). “[T]he only exceptions to the time limitations specified in subsection (1)” are those set forth in subsection (2). § 16-5-402(2) (emphasis added). ¶ 10 As pertinent here, a defendant who invokes the timeliness exception set forth in section 16-5-402(2)(d) must allege facts establishing justifiable excuse or excusable neglect for the entire period of their delay. 2024People v. Chavez-Torres, 2019 CO 59, ¶ 13 (citing People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424 , 440 n.15 (Colo. 1993)). “[T]he only exceptions to the time limitations specified in subsection (1)” are those set forth in subsection (2). § 16-5-402(2) (emphasis added). ¶ 10 As pertinent here, a defendant who invokes the timeliness exception set forth in section 16-5-402(2)(d) must allege facts establishing justifiable excuse or excusable neglect for the entire period of their delay. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Chavez-Torresgreen2 sentences2024People v. Chavez-Torres, 2019 CO 59, ¶ 13 (citing People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424 , 440 n.15 (Colo. 1993)). “[T]he only exceptions to the time limitations specified in subsection (1)” are those set forth in subsection (2). § 16-5-402(2) (emphasis added). ¶ 10 As pertinent here, a defendant who invokes the timeliness exception set forth in section 16-5-402(2)(d) must allege facts establishing justifiable excuse or excusable neglect for the entire period of their delay. 2024People v. Chavez-Torres, 2019 CO 59, ¶ 13 (citing People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424 , 440 n.15 (Colo. 1993)). “[T]he only exceptions to the time limitations specified in subsection (1)” are those set forth in subsection (2). § 16-5-402(2) (emphasis added). ¶ 10 As pertinent here, a defendant who invokes the timeliness exception set forth in section 16-5-402(2)(d) must allege facts establishing justifiable excuse or excusable neglect for the entire period of their delay. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Suttmillergreen1 sentence2026See People v. Suttmiller, 240 P.3d 504, 506-07 (Colo. App. 2010) (cross-appeal required when party seeks to increase rights under judgment). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Grantgreen1 sentence2022See People v. Salazar, 964 P.2d 502, 507 (Colo. 1998); see 23 also People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798, 803 (Colo. App. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Salazargreen1 sentence2022See People v. Salazar, 964 P.2d 502, 507 (Colo. 1998); see 23 also People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798, 803 (Colo. App. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Georgiagreen1 sentence2021Batson, 476 U.S. at 99 & n.24 (declining to “formulate particular procedures to be followed,” but contemplating that the objection be timely made); see also Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423 (1991) (“Undoubtedly, then, a state court may adopt a general rule that a Batson claim is untimely if it is raised for the first time on appeal, or after the jury is sworn, or before its members are selected.”). | 1 | 1 |
L.A.N. ex rel. L.A.N. v. L.M.B.green1 sentence2020See L.A.N. v. L.M.B., 2013 CO 6, ¶ 13 (“We first review . . . the dependency and neglect provisions of the Children’s Code, sections 19-3-100.5 to 19-3-703, C.R.S. (2012), de novo . . . .”). ¶ 41 Because the juvenile court held a paternity hearing, the only procedural question is the timeliness of that hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Munizgreen1 sentence1984See People v. Muniz, 667 P.2d 1377 (Colo.1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Lance H. Mortensen
green
2 sentences2025Because Mortensen waited to seek withdrawal of his waiver until the morning of the retrial, the court concluded that he "clearly failed to satisfy the timeliness requirement." Id. at 951 . ¶35 Notably, the Ninth Circuit was troubled by the fact that Mortensen's actions up until the morning of the retrial were inconsistent with his last-minute request to withdraw his waiver. 2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2021Batson, 476 U.S. at 99 & n.24 (declining to “formulate particular procedures to be followed,” but contemplating that the objection be timely made); see also Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423 (1991) (“Undoubtedly, then, a state court may adopt a general rule that a Batson claim is untimely if it is raised for the first time on appeal, or after the jury is sworn, or before its members are selected.”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Boyle
green
2 sentences1999Thus, for example, in Commonwealth v. Boyle, 533 Pa. 360 , 625 A.2d 616 (1993), although a eriminal provision of the sales tax code did not expressly include a timeliness requirement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's conviction for failure to file sales tax returns because relevant civil provisions of the tax code specified when the sales tax returns were due. 1999Thus, for example, in Commonwealth v. Boyle, 533 Pa. 360 , 625 A.2d 616 (1993), although a eriminal provision of the sales tax code did not expressly include a timeliness requirement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's conviction for failure to file sales tax returns because relevant civil provisions of the tax code specified when the sales tax returns were due. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Colorado National Bank-Arvada v. Greaney
green
1 sentence1992In Colorado National Bank-Arvada v. Greaney, 720 P.2d 611 (Colo.App.1986), this court addressed the timeliness of a claim to set-off a customer’s bank account funds against a bank loan. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.