wording clause (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

wording clause in Colorado

9 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2024 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Jeffries-Eaves, Inc., of Colo.green
colo · 1968 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024Co. v. Jefferies-Eaves, Inc., 442 P.2d 822, 824 (Colo. 1968) (when the wording of a clause is susceptible to multiple interpretations, it is the duty of a court to examine the contract as a whole to determine if other provisions will resolve the ambiguity). ¶ 25 Here, the terms of the Buy-Out Agreement can be harmonized by reading the Stock Pledge Agreement with Stock Certificate No. 3.

11
Eychner v. Van Vleetgreen
coloctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996See Eychner v. Van Vleet, 870 P.2d 486 (Colo.App.1993).

11
Schneble v. Floridagreen
scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
2 sentences

1972See Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972).

1972See Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972).

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 (6)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Corbett green
ca1 · 2017
2 sentences

2019The court explained that “when the ‘subject matter [is] unmistakably on the table, and the defense’s silence is reasonably understood only as signifying agreement that there was nothing objectionable,’ the issue is waived on appeal.” Id. (citations omitted). ¶ 55 Applying this test here, defendant’s right to a self-defense instruction and the wording of that instruction were “on the table.” See id. (citations omitted).

2019The court explained that “when the ‘subject matter [is] unmistakably on the table, and the defense’s silence is reasonably understood only as signifying agreement that there was nothing objectionable,’ the issue is waived on appeal.” Id. (citations omitted). ¶ 55 Applying this test here, defendant’s right to a self-defense instruction and the wording of that instruction were “on the table.” See id. (citations omitted).

12019–2019
State v. Smith-Parker green
kan · 2014
1 sentence

2016A judge cannot compel a jury to convict, even if it finds all elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

12016–2016
Idrogo v. People green
colo · 1991
2 sentences

2004Id. at 757 . *957 B.

2004Id. at 757 .

12004–2004
Brna v. Farmers Insurance Exchange green
coloctapp · 1994
1 sentence

1997Unlike the clause involved in Brna v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, supra, Avis’ clause, like Allstate’s, does not exclude coverage if other insurance coverage is available, but rather merely makes its coverage excess to any other coverage.

11997–1997
Pepcol Manufacturing Co. v. Denver Union Corp. green
colo · 1984
1 sentence

1993Nelson v. Lange, supra. The court must strive to ascertain and give effect to the mutual intent of the parties, see Pepcol Manufacturing Co. v. Denver Union Corp., 687 P.2d 1310 (Colo.1984), and must consider the subject matter and purposes to be accomplished by the agreement.

11993–1993
Chacon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company green
colo · 1990
1 sentence

1991Chacon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 788 P.2d 748 (Colo.1990).

11991–1991

Statutes the citing opinions construe

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

OR 125 (1895–2026) CA 70 (1927–2026) WV 53 (1977–2024) IL 39 (1904–2024) TX 27 (1910–2024) MO 22 (1905–2017) AL 20 (1930–2018) IN 20 (1930–2017) IA 20 (1918–2026) FL 20 (1959–2017) KS 19 (1934–2024) OH 16 (1975–2024) AZ 16 (1954–2020) WA 14 (1906–2024) KY 13 (1920–2026) PA 13 (1924–2021) DC 11 (1960–2025) VA 11 (1964–2025) NY 11 (1916–2004) MI 10 (1913–2025) MA 10 (1947–2010) NM 10 (1954–2025) NC 9 (1927–2024) NJ 9 (1964–2025) CO 9 (1972–2024) ID 8 (1949–2022) OK 8 (1926–2016) WI 7 (1962–2021) UT 4 (1949–2019) NE 4 (1950–2018) MD 4 (1999–2012) WY 4 (1978–1984) AR 4 (1950–1988) GA 4 (1941–2011) CT 3 (2002–2022) MS 3 (2007–2013) NH 3 (1983–2011) TN 2 (1998–2014) LA 2 (1992–2008) VI 2 (2012–2015) SC 2 (1901–1987) DE 2 (2001–2015) AK 2 (1981–2005)

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