9 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 2 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. Glassergreen1 sentence2019People v. Glasser, 293 P.3d 68, 76 (Colo. App. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Adolfgreen2 sentences2014See People v. Adolf, 2012 COA 60, ¶ 9 , 296 P.3d 251,253 . ¶ 59 Colorado’s speedy trial statute requires dismissal if a defendant is not brought to trial within six months of the entry of a not guilty plea, unless the delay falls into one of the exclusion categories set forth by statute. § 18-1-405(1); see People v. Arledge, 938 P.2d 160, 165 (Colo.1997). 2014See People v. Adolf, 2012 COA 60, ¶ 9 , 296 P.3d 251,253 . ¶ 59 Colorado’s speedy trial statute requires dismissal if a defendant is not brought to trial within six months of the entry of a not guilty plea, unless the delay falls into one of the exclusion categories set forth by statute. § 18-1-405(1); see People v. Arledge, 938 P.2d 160, 165 (Colo.1997). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Arledgegreen1 sentence2014See People v. Adolf, 2012 COA 60, ¶ 9 , 296 P.3d 251,253 . ¶ 59 Colorado’s speedy trial statute requires dismissal if a defendant is not brought to trial within six months of the entry of a not guilty plea, unless the delay falls into one of the exclusion categories set forth by statute. § 18-1-405(1); see People v. Arledge, 938 P.2d 160, 165 (Colo.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Krystkowiak v. W.O. Brisben Companies, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Krystkowiak, 90 P.3d at 863 ; see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct, 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) ("Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a. claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."). 124 In the qualified immunity context, even if the plaintiff's complaint alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether 2012Brisben Cos., 90 P.3d 859, 862 (Colo.2004) ("We reaffirm POME's holding that a motion to dismiss based on First Amendment immunity is properly decided as a motion for summary judgment."). { 22 And, in Yadon v. Lowry, 126 P.3d 332, 337 (Colo.App.2005), a division of this court applied the POME factors in a purely private lawsuit between private parties, despite law review literature endorsing a more narrow application of those factors. 123 Based on these cases, which de-seribe the First Amendment protection afforded to an abuse of process defendant as a form of "immunity" and the plaintiffs cla | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carrgreen1 sentence2012People v. Carr, 205 P.3d 471, 473 (Colo.App.2008). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gessgreen1 sentence2012People v. Gess, 250 P.3d 734, 736 (Colo.App.2010). | 1 | 1 |
Yadon v. Lowrygreen1 sentence2012Brisben Cos., 90 P.3d 859, 862 (Colo.2004) ("We reaffirm POME's holding that a motion to dismiss based on First Amendment immunity is properly decided as a motion for summary judgment."). { 22 And, in Yadon v. Lowry, 126 P.3d 332, 337 (Colo.App.2005), a division of this court applied the POME factors in a purely private lawsuit between private parties, despite law review literature endorsing a more narrow application of those factors. 123 Based on these cases, which de-seribe the First Amendment protection afforded to an abuse of process defendant as a form of "immunity" and the plaintiffs cla | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Forsythgreen2 sentences2012See Krystkowiak, 90 P.3d at 863 ; see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct, 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) ("Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a. claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."). 124 In the qualified immunity context, even if the plaintiff's complaint alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether 2012See Krystkowiak, 90 P.3d at 863 ; see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct, 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) ("Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a. claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery."). 124 In the qualified immunity context, even if the plaintiff's complaint alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
ck v. McNabb
green
1 sentence2026See, e.g., Dodge v. Padilla, 2023 COA 67 , ¶ 6; Bilderback v. McNabb, 2020 COA 133, ¶ 1 . 10 resolve whether the accounting claim was subject to the CGIA before the division decided Grand Junction I, and the division specifically instructed the court to resolve that question on remand. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Fleming
green
1 sentence2025Id. ¶ 26 “We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for violation of the UMDDA, but we review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to grant a continuance for good cause.” People v. Hines, 2021 COA 45 , ¶ 17, 491 P.3d 578 , 583 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Stackhouse v. People
green
1 sentence2019Stackhouse v. People, 2015 CO 48, ¶ 4 . ¶ 15 Finally, where the facts are undisputed, a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for violation of the UMDDA is reviewed de novo. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Glaser
green
1 sentence2013People v. Glaser, 250 P.3d 632 , 636 (Colo.App.2010). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. McMurtry
green
1 sentence2011For example, in People v. McMurtry, 122 P.3d 237 (Colo.2005), we distinguished the general term "jurisdiction," meaning "authority or lack thereof," from the concept of "subject matter jurisdiction" and held that the improper denial of a motion to dismiss for violation of the speedy trial statute does not divest a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Feigin v. Digital Interactive Associates, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002See § 8-48-8301(2), C.R.S.2001 (petition for review may be filed only if penalty claim is granted or denied); Feigin v. Digital Interactive Assocs., Inc., 987 P.2d 876 (Colo.App.1999) (denial of a motion to dismiss is normally not reviewable because it is not a final order); M & M Mgmt. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.