magistrate hearing (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

magistrate hearing in Colorado

9 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2025 3 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re Petition of RGBgreen
coloctapp · 2004 · cited in 3 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2011–2025
2 sentences

2025See id. ¶ 19 “A district court magistrate has only those powers provided by statute or court rule.” Id. at ¶ 6 (first citing § 13-5-201(3), C.R.S. 2024; and then citing In re R.G.B., 98 P.3d 958, 960 (Colo. App. 2004) (a magistrate is a hearing officer who acts with limited authority)).

2019See § 13-5-201(3), C.R.S. 2019 (“District court magistrates may hear such matters as are determined by rule of the supreme court . . . .”); see also In re R.G.B., 98 P.3d 958, 960 (Colo. App. 2004) (a magistrate is a hearing officer who acts with limited authority).

33
v. Millergreen
coloctapp · 2019 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025See id. ¶ 19 “A district court magistrate has only those powers provided by statute or court rule.” Id. at ¶ 6 (first citing § 13-5-201(3), C.R.S. 2024; and then citing In re R.G.B., 98 P.3d 958, 960 (Colo. App. 2004) (a magistrate is a hearing officer who acts with limited authority)).

11
People ex rel. C.L.S.green
coloctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020See, e.g., N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354, 358 (Colo. 2000) (“The magistrate held a hearing on the issue . . . .”); C.L.S., 313 P.3d at 664 (“After a hearing, the magistrate entered a series of findings.”). ¶ 45 B.B. does not cite, nor have we found, a Colorado case holding that where a paternity question arises in an ongoing dependency and neglect proceeding, the “as soon as practicable” requirement applies. 21 B.

11
Nah v. Slsgreen
colo · 2000 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020See, e.g., N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354, 358 (Colo. 2000) (“The magistrate held a hearing on the issue . . . .”); C.L.S., 313 P.3d at 664 (“After a hearing, the magistrate entered a series of findings.”). ¶ 45 B.B. does not cite, nor have we found, a Colorado case holding that where a paternity question arises in an ongoing dependency and neglect proceeding, the “as soon as practicable” requirement applies. 21 B.

11
in Interest of R.Jgreen
coloctapp · 2019 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019See People in Interest of R.J., 2019 COA 109, ¶ 8 (“[W]e should presume that the inclusion of certain terms in a rule or statute implies the exclusion of others.”); see also Heotis, ¶ 18 (“After examining the various categories of cases in C.R.M. 6(c)(1)(A)-(G), we see that a proceeding in which a magistrate could rule on a petition to seal criminal records is not expressly mentioned in any of them.”). ¶ 12 Simply put, because ruling on the Motion was a function that could be performed only with consent, C.R.M. 7(a) is inapplicable.

11
People Ex Rel. Rwgreen
coloctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011Indeed, the district court stated erroneously, "When a court does not articulate the standard used, it is assumed that a preponderance of the evidence standard was applied." In support of this proposition, the district court cited People in Interest of R.W., 989 P.2d 240, 248 (Colo.App.1999), aff'd sub nom.

11
Estate of Jordan v. Estate of Jordangreen
coloctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995See In re Estate of Jordan, supra. The petition for rehearing is denied.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
IN RE the Parental Responsibilities Concerning A.C.B., a Child, and Concerning Laura Jeane Frederick, and Joshua Broyhill, and Concerning Pueblo County Child Support Services, Intervenor-Appellee. green
coloctapp · 2022
2 sentences

2024The court must find that the party has the present ability to comply with the court order, and therefore purge the contempt, so that “the [party] holds in [his or her] hand[s] the proverbial keys to the jailhouse door — once [he or she] purges the contempt, [he or she] is free.” In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning A.C.B., 2022 COA 3, ¶ 24 . ¶ 25 In this case, the magistrate held a hearing and found that wife had the ability to comply with its final order by paying husband at least $25,000 towards the equalization payment; yet, she had not done so.

2024The court must find that the party has the present ability to comply with the court order, and therefore purge the contempt, so that “the [party] holds in [his or her] hand[s] the proverbial keys to the jailhouse door — once [he or she] purges the contempt, [he or she] is free.” In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning A.C.B., 2022 COA 3, ¶ 24 . ¶ 25 In this case, the magistrate held a hearing and found that wife had the ability to comply with its final order by paying husband at least $25,000 towards the equalization payment; yet, she had not done so.

22024–2024
Troxel v. Granville green
scotus · 2000
2 sentences

2012The magistrate also declined to rule on whether father's fundamental rights as a presumptive fit parent, recognized in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000), required that he be accorded a first and prior right to the custody of the child. {17 Father moved the district court for review of the magistrate's ruling.

2012The magistrate also declined to rule on whether father's fundamental rights as a presumptive fit parent, recognized in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000), required that he be accorded a first and prior right to the custody of the child. {17 Father moved the district court for review of the magistrate's ruling.

12012–2012

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-5-201 (3) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-51-1105 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 37 (1934–2026) TX 29 (1967–2025) CA 21 (1963–2014) CO 9 (1995–2025) WV 7 (1982–2020) OK 6 (1974–2017) ID 6 (1963–2013) PA 5 (1959–1977) GA 4 (1916–1980) SC 4 (1908–1938) NY 4 (1915–1991) MI 3 (1990–2016) KS 3 (1935–2022) IN 3 (1955–2012) FL 2 (2008–2010) NM 2 (2008–2008) NC 2 (1984–1984) VA 2 (1915–1982)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check