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 2 courts 1972–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Lohngreen2 sentences2026However, in its order on husband’s motion for reconsideration of that order, the court addressed and denied the same argument under the forum non conveniens doctrine as outlined in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Lohn, 557 P.2d 373, 374 (Colo. 1976). 16 III.B, husband had already waived any challenge to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction by failing to timely contest it and by requesting affirmative relief. 2002It held that “the doctrine of forum non conveniens has only the most limited application in Colorado courts, and except in most unusual circumstances the choice of a Colorado forum by a resident plaintiff will not be disturbed.” McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Lohn, supra, 192 Colo, at 201, 557 P.2d at 374 . | 5 | 8 |
Nations Enterprises, Inc. v. PROCESS EQMT.green1 sentence2026Co., 579 P.2d 655, 657 (Colo. App. 1978) (holding that appellant successfully raised a personal jurisdiction defense when it “denied that it was doing business in Colorado and raised as an affirmative defense lack of minimum contacts with Colorado” despite it labeling the argument as an attack on subject matter jurisdiction). ¶ 29 Moreover, husband’s own actions nullified his attempt to limit his appearance when he moved to dismiss the petition,5 as well as when he later asked the district court to rule on the validity of the marriage, dismiss the dissolution action as a sanction against wife, | 1 | 1 |
UIH-SFCC Holdings, L.P. v. Brigatogreen1 sentence2017See McDonnell-Douglas, 192 Colo. at 201, 557 P.2d at 374; see also Brigato, 51 P.3d at 1079-80 . ¶ 15 Sage argues that Crane ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Casey v. Trussgreen2 sentences1989Article II, section 6, "limits very stringently the power to exclude resident plaintiffs from our court system where jurisdiction has otherwise been properly established." McDonnell-Douglas v. Lohn, 192 Colo. 200, 201 , 557 P.2d 373, 374 (1976) (because of article II, section 6, the doctrine of forum non conveniens has only the most limited application in Colorado courts); accord Casey v. Truss, 720 P.2d 985 (Colo.App.1986), cert. denied, No. 86SC114 (Colo.Sup.Ct. 1989Article II, section 6, “limits very stringently the power to exclude resident plaintiffs from our court system where jurisdiction has otherwise been properly established.” McDonnell-Douglas v. Lohn, 192 Colo. 200, 201 , 557 P.2d 373, 374 (1976) (because of article II, section 6, the doctrine of forum non conveniens has only the most limited application in Colorado courts); accord Casey v. Truss, 720 P.2d 985 (Colo.App.1986), cert. denied, No. 86SC114 (Colo.Sup.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
Kelce v. Touche Ross & Co.green2 sentences1981Accordingly, it was there held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “has only the most limited application in Colorado courts, and except in most unusual circumstances the choice of a Colorado forum by a resident plaintiff will not be disturbed.” 192 Colo. at 201 , 557 P.2d at 374 ; accord, Kelce v. Touche Ross & Co., 192 Colo. 202 , 557 P.2d 374 (1976). 1981Accordingly, it was there held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “has only the most limited application in Colorado courts, and except in most unusual circumstances the choice of a Colorado forum by a resident plaintiff will not be disturbed.” 192 Colo. at 201 , 557 P.2d at 374 ; accord, Kelce v. Touche Ross & Co., 192 Colo. 202 , 557 P.2d 374 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Mizar v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1972As a qualification of the otherwise general duty of a court to hear and decide those actions over which it has jurisdiction (England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 , 84 S.Ct. 461 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440 ; see also Mizar v. Jones, 157 Colo. 535 , 403 P.2d 767 ), the doctrine of forum non conveniens must be applied with restraint and only after a proper showing has been made. 1972As a qualification of the otherwise general duty of a court to hear and decide those actions over which it has jurisdiction (England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 , 84 S.Ct. 461 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440 ; see also Mizar v. Jones, 157 Colo. 535 , 403 P.2d 767 ), the doctrine of forum non conveniens must be applied with restraint and only after a proper showing has been made. | 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 in Interest of JLP
green
1 sentence2019T.E.R., ¶ 9; J.L.P., 870 P.2d at 1256 . ¶ 44 We initially note that even though the juvenile court found that ICWA does not apply to the Navajo Nation’s motion to transfer jurisdiction, it nonetheless exercised its discretion and considered the request. ¶ 45 We acknowledge that ICWA only addresses a request to transfer jurisdiction during foster care placement and termination of parental rights proceedings. 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (b). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Crane on Behalf of Cook v. Makelburg
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 759-60 . ¶ 16 The parties agree that California law governs Cox’s claims. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. District Court of Creek County
green
1 sentence2017Court, 298 P.2d 427 (Okla. 1956). 6 ¶ 13 While judicial economy often factors into a court’s forum non conveniens analysis, this factor alone does not outweigh a resident plaintiff’s constitutionally based interest in having his action heard by Colorado state courts. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Allison Drilling Co., Inc. v. Kaiser Steel Corp.
green
1 sentence1974Allison Drilling Co., Inc. v. Kaiser Steel Corp., 31 Colo.App. 355 , 502 P.2d *1250 967. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
green
2 sentences1972As a qualification of the otherwise general duty of a court to hear and decide those actions over which it has jurisdiction (England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 , 84 S.Ct. 461 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440 ; see also Mizar v. Jones, 157 Colo. 535 , 403 P.2d 767 ), the doctrine of forum non conveniens must be applied with restraint and only after a proper showing has been made. 1972As a qualification of the otherwise general duty of a court to hear and decide those actions over which it has jurisdiction (England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 , 84 S.Ct. 461 , 11 L.Ed.2d 440 ; see also Mizar v. Jones, 157 Colo. 535 , 403 P.2d 767 ), the doctrine of forum non conveniens must be applied with restraint and only after a proper showing has been made. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.