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.
9 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1930–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baltimore Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Baltimoregreen2 sentences1972Co. v. Baltimore, 195 U.S. 375 , 25 S.Ct. 50 , 49 L.Ed. 242 : “It would be a very harsh doctrine that would deny the right of the states to tax lands because of a mere possibility that they might lapse to the United States [for failure to fulfill certain contractural obligations].” Here, where all the evidence indicates that the most significant incidents of ownership are possessed by appellant, it would be an especially unjust result to allow Mesa Verde Company to escape state taxation merely because the United States held legal title to insure the performance of certain contractural conditio 1972Co. v. Baltimore, 195 U.S. 375 , 25 S.Ct. 50 , 49 L.Ed. 242 : “It would be a very harsh doctrine that would deny the right of the states to tax lands because of a mere possibility that they might lapse to the United States [for failure to fulfill certain contractural obligations].” Here, where all the evidence indicates that the most significant incidents of ownership are possessed by appellant, it would be an especially unjust result to allow Mesa Verde Company to escape state taxation merely because the United States held legal title to insure the performance of certain contractural conditio | 1 | 3 |
Mesa Verde Co. v. Board of County Commissionersgreen2 sentences2017Bd. of Equalization, 30 P.3d 813, 815-16 (Colo. App. 2001) (holding that assessor was correct to disregard hotel rooms under construction when valuing property because “economic conditions existing outside the base period may not be considered in arriving at the taxable value of property”); see also Vail Assocs., 19 P.3d at 1280 (holding that ski resort held taxable possessory property interest, 2 The members can engage in direct governance only by amending the Club declaration by a vote of 75% of members. 20 notwithstanding that its interest only extended to the year 2031); Mesa Verde, 178 Co 2017Bd. of Equalization, 30 P.3d 813, 815-16 (Colo. App. 2001) (holding that assessor was correct to disregard hotel rooms under construction when valuing property because “economic conditions existing outside the base period may not be considered in arriving at the taxable value of property”); see also Vail Assocs., 19 P.3d at 1280 (holding that ski resort held taxable possessory property interest, 2 The members can engage in direct governance only by amending the Club declaration by a vote of 75% of members. 20 notwithstanding that its interest only extended to the year 2031); Mesa Verde, 178 Co | 1 | 1 |
Board of County Commissioners v. Vail Associates, Inc.green1 sentence2017Bd. of Equalization, 30 P.3d 813, 815-16 (Colo. App. 2001) (holding that assessor was correct to disregard hotel rooms under construction when valuing property because “economic conditions existing outside the base period may not be considered in arriving at the taxable value of property”); see also Vail Assocs., 19 P.3d at 1280 (holding that ski resort held taxable possessory property interest, 2 The members can engage in direct governance only by amending the Club declaration by a vote of 75% of members. 20 notwithstanding that its interest only extended to the year 2031); Mesa Verde, 178 Co | 1 | 1 |
Padre Resort, Inc. v. Jefferson County Board of Equalizationgreen1 sentence2017Bd. of Equalization, 30 P.3d 813, 815-16 (Colo. App. 2001) (holding that assessor was correct to disregard hotel rooms under construction when valuing property because “economic conditions existing outside the base period may not be considered in arriving at the taxable value of property”); see also Vail Assocs., 19 P.3d at 1280 (holding that ski resort held taxable possessory property interest, 2 The members can engage in direct governance only by amending the Club declaration by a vote of 75% of members. 20 notwithstanding that its interest only extended to the year 2031); Mesa Verde, 178 Co | 1 | 1 |
Robinson Terminal Warehouse Corporation v. Herman Adlergreen1 sentence1986See, e.g., Robinson Terminal Warehouse Corp. v. Adler, 440 F.2d 1060 (4th Cir.1971); Coker-Mitchell Co. v. State Industrial Court, 450 P.2d 894 (Okla.1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
H & K Automotive Supply Co. v. Moore & Co.
green
2 sentences1992H & K Automotive Supply Co. v. Moore & Co., 657 P.2d 986 (Colo.App.1982). 1984H & K Automotive Supply Co. v. Moore & Co., 657 P.2d 986 (Colo.App.1982); Louis Cook Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Frank Briscol Co., 445 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir.1971). | 2 | 1984–1992 |
Matter of Death of Peterkin
green
2 sentences1992The court of appeals also affirmed, rejecting Eckhardt's argument that there should be certain exceptions to the harsh rule of forfeiture established in our decision in Matter of Death of Peterkin, 729 P.2d 977 (Colo.1986). 1992The court of appeals also affirmed, rejecting Eckhardt’s argument that there should be certain exceptions to the harsh rule of forfeiture established in our decision in Matter of Death of Peterkin, 729 P.2d 977 (Colo.1986). | 2 | 1990–1992 |
Security Life and Accident Company v. Heckers
green
2 sentences1972Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County, supra. After taking into consideration the above rationale, as well as the fact that there is a strong presumption in Colorado against tax exemption, Security Life & Accident v. Heckers 177 Colo. 455, 495 P.2d 225 ; United Presbyterian Ass’n. v. Board of County Com’rs, 167 Colo. 485 , 448 P.2d 967 ; Board of County Com’rs. v. Colo. Seminary, 12 Colo. 497 , 21 P. 490 , we uphold the district court’s decision dismissing appellant’s complaint. 1972Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County, supra. After taking into consideration the above rationale, as well as the fact that there is a strong presumption in Colorado against tax exemption, Security Life & Accident v. Heckers 177 Colo. 455, 495 P.2d 225 ; United Presbyterian Ass’n. v. Board of County Com’rs, 167 Colo. 485 , 448 P.2d 967 ; Board of County Com’rs. v. Colo. Seminary, 12 Colo. 497 , 21 P. 490 , we uphold the district court’s decision dismissing appellant’s complaint. | 2 | 1972–1972 |
County Commissioners v. Colorado Seminary
green
2 sentences1972Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County, supra. After taking into consideration the above rationale, as well as the fact that there is a strong presumption in Colorado against tax exemption, Security Life & Accident v. Heckers 177 Colo. 455, 495 P.2d 225 ; United Presbyterian Ass’n. v. Board of County Com’rs, 167 Colo. 485 , 448 P.2d 967 ; Board of County Com’rs. v. Colo. Seminary, 12 Colo. 497 , 21 P. 490 , we uphold the district court’s decision dismissing appellant’s complaint. 1972Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County, supra. After taking into consideration the above rationale, as well as the fact that there is a strong presumption in Colorado against tax exemption, Security Life & Accident v. Heckers 177 Colo. 455, 495 P.2d 225 ; United Presbyterian Ass’n. v. Board of County Com’rs, 167 Colo. 485 , 448 P.2d 967 ; Board of County Com’rs. v. Colo. Seminary, 12 Colo. 497 , 21 P. 490 , we uphold the district court’s decision dismissing appellant’s complaint. | 2 | 1972–1972 |
United Presbyterian Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences1972Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County, supra. After taking into consideration the above rationale, as well as the fact that there is a strong presumption in Colorado against tax exemption, Security Life & Accident v. Heckers 177 Colo. 455, 495 P.2d 225 ; United Presbyterian Ass’n. v. Board of County Com’rs, 167 Colo. 485 , 448 P.2d 967 ; Board of County Com’rs. v. Colo. Seminary, 12 Colo. 497 , 21 P. 490 , we uphold the district court’s decision dismissing appellant’s complaint. 1972Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County, supra. After taking into consideration the above rationale, as well as the fact that there is a strong presumption in Colorado against tax exemption, Security Life & Accident v. Heckers 177 Colo. 455, 495 P.2d 225 ; United Presbyterian Ass’n. v. Board of County Com’rs, 167 Colo. 485 , 448 P.2d 967 ; Board of County Com’rs. v. Colo. Seminary, 12 Colo. 497 , 21 P. 490 , we uphold the district court’s decision dismissing appellant’s complaint. | 2 | 1972–1972 |
Coker-Mitchell Company v. State Industrial Court
green
1 sentence1986See, e.g., Robinson Terminal Warehouse Corp. v. Adler, 440 F.2d 1060 (4th Cir.1971); Coker-Mitchell Co. v. State Industrial Court, 450 P.2d 894 (Okla.1969). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Louis Cook Plumbing and Heating, Inc. v. Frank Briscoe Company, Inc.
green
1 sentence1984H & K Automotive Supply Co. v. Moore & Co., 657 P.2d 986 (Colo.App.1982); Louis Cook Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Frank Briscol Co., 445 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir.1971). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Stanard v. Dayton
green
2 sentences1930We are asked now to hold that the true rule is to be found, not in the case of Langley v. Young, supra, decided by this court en banc, without a dissent, nor yet in Dayton v. Stanard, supra, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, but in the reversed decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Stanard v. Dayton, 220 Fed. 441 . 1930We are asked now to hold that the true rule is to be found, not in the case of Langley v. Young, supra , decided by this court en banc, without a dissent, nor yet in Dayton v. Standard, supra , decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, but in the reversed decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Standard v. Dayton , 220 Fed. 441 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.