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 1986–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Oversole v. Mancigreen1 sentence2026Lake Meredith, 698 P.2d at 1345 ; see also Oversole, 216 P.3d at 623 (applying factors to court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute). 9 ¶ 24 We conclude that once Montgomery alerted the district court to the fact that the defendants had been timely served, the court abused its discretion by largely failing to consider the Lake Meredith factors when it denied the motion to reopen and said that it had dismissed the case under Rule 121, section 1-10. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Connerton and Nevingreen1 sentence2026In re Marriage of Connerton, 260 P.3d 62, 66 (Colo. App. 2010). ¶ 21 To determine the amount of a child support award, the court must consider several factors, including both parents’ financial resources. § 14-10-115(2)(b), C.R.S. 2025. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cobbgreen1 sentence2025Tippet, ¶ 37. ¶ 44 A court must consider several factors when deciding discovery sanctions: “(1) the reason for and degree of culpability associated with the violation; (2) the extent of resulting prejudice to the other party; (3) any events after the violation that mitigate such prejudice; (4) reasonable and less drastic alternatives to exclusion; and (5) any other relevant facts.” Id. (quoting People v. Cobb, 962 P.2d 944, 949 (Colo. 1998)). 22 3. | 1 | 1 |
Kodiak Oilfield Haulers v. Adamsgreen1 sentence1993See Kodiak Oil Field Haiders v. Adams, 777 P.2d 1145 (Alaska 1989); cf. Largo Corp. v. Crespin, 727 P.2d 1098, 1102 (Colo.1986) (“In determining whether the law should impose a duty on the defendant to avoid a particular harm to the plaintiff, the court must consider several factors, including the extent, foreseeability and likelihood of injury, the social utility of the actor’s conduct, the magnitude of the burden placed on the defendant to guard against the injury, and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant.”). | 1 | 1 |
Largo Corp. v. Crespingreen1 sentence1993See Kodiak Oil Field Haiders v. Adams, 777 P.2d 1145 (Alaska 1989); cf. Largo Corp. v. Crespin, 727 P.2d 1098, 1102 (Colo.1986) (“In determining whether the law should impose a duty on the defendant to avoid a particular harm to the plaintiff, the court must consider several factors, including the extent, foreseeability and likelihood of injury, the social utility of the actor’s conduct, the magnitude of the burden placed on the defendant to guard against the injury, and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. City & County of Denver ex rel. Board of Water Commissioners
green
2 sentences1989Smith, 726 P.2d at 1127 . 1986Smith v. City and County of Denver, 726 P.2d 1125 (Colo.1986). | 2 | 1986–1989 |
Jefferson County School District R-1 v. Justus ex rel. Justus
green
2 sentences1988Justus v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 683 P.2d 805 (Colo.App.1984), rev’d in part on other grounds, 725 P.2d 767 (Colo.1986). 1987Justus v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 683 P.2d 805 (Colo.App.1984) rev’d in part on other grounds, 725 P.2d 767 (Colo.1986). | 2 | 1987–1988 |
Justus Ex Rel. Justus v. Jefferson County School District R-1
green
2 sentences1988Justus v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 683 P.2d 805 (Colo.App.1984), rev’d in part on other grounds, 725 P.2d 767 (Colo.1986). 1987Justus v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 683 P.2d 805 (Colo.App.1984) rev’d in part on other grounds, 725 P.2d 767 (Colo.1986). | 2 | 1987–1988 |
Lake Meredith Reservoir Co. v. Amity Mutual Irrigation Co.
green
1 sentence2026Lake Meredith, 698 P.2d at 1345 ; see also Oversole, 216 P.3d at 623 (applying factors to court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute). 9 ¶ 24 We conclude that once Montgomery alerted the district court to the fact that the defendants had been timely served, the court abused its discretion by largely failing to consider the Lake Meredith factors when it denied the motion to reopen and said that it had dismissed the case under Rule 121, section 1-10. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Waller v. Georgia
green
1 sentence2018Waller, 467 U.S. at 48 ; Hassen, ¶ 9. ¶ 16 But for those factors to come into play — indeed, for the right to a public trial to be implicated at all — there must be some closure of the courtroom. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.