ad hoc analysis in Colorado

8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 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)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Scalesgreen colo · 1988 · cited in 3 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1995–2000 2 sentences 2000People v. Scales, 763 P.2d 1045 (Colo.1988). 1997See Scales, 763 P.2d at 1048 .	1	3
Animas Valley Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Board of County Commissionersgreen colo · 2001 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025When discussing the regulations at issue and their effect on the economically beneficial uses of the property at issue, the court 21 articulated the necessary fact-specific inquiry that should be undertaken, stating, “[t]he trial court must determine to what degree the current restrictions on [landowner’s] property are attributable to the plan rather than to the accumulated state and federal regulations of the past several decades,” and “the trial court must then quantify the resulting diminution in value, if any, of the property.” Id. at 66 (emphasis added). ¶ 43 As part of the second portion 2025When discussing the regulations at issue and their effect on the economically beneficial uses of the property at issue, the court 21 articulated the necessary fact-specific inquiry that should be undertaken, stating, “[t]he trial court must determine to what degree the current restrictions on [landowner’s] property are attributable to the plan rather than to the accumulated state and federal regulations of the past several decades,” and “the trial court must then quantify the resulting diminution in value, if any, of the property.” Id. at 66 (emphasis added). ¶ 43 As part of the second portion	1	1
Gelfand v. Peoplegreen colo · 1978 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988See, e.g., Gelfand v. People, 196 Colo. 487 , 586 P.2d 1331 (1978); People v. Small, 177 Colo. 118 , 493 P.2d 15 (1972). 1988See, e.g., Gelfand v. People, 196 Colo. 487 , 586 P.2d 1331 (1978); People v. Small, 177 Colo. 118 , 493 P.2d 15 (1972).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C. green colo · 2002 2 sentences 2007We explained in Keefe that' “the question of the legitimacy of exercising specific jurisdiction over a nonresident who is not present in the state and has not expressly agreed to jurisdiction largely involves an ad hoc analysis of the facts of each case.” Id. 2007We explained in Keefe that "the question of the legitimacy of exercising specific jurisdiction over a nonresident who is not present in the state and has not expressly agreed to jurisdiction largely involves an ad hoc analysis of the facts of each case." in We further noted that "the individual nature of the determination makes it extremely difficult to compare precisely the unique circumstances and outcomes of different cases." Id.	1	2007–2007
People v. Cerrone green coloctapp · 1993 1 sentence 1995People v. Scales, 763 P.2d 1045 (Colo.1988); People v. Cerrone, 867 P.2d 143 (Colo.App.1993).	1	1995–1995
People v. Small green colo · 1972 2 sentences 1988See, e.g., Gelfand v. People, 196 Colo. 487 , 586 P.2d 1331 (1978); People v. Small, 177 Colo. 118 , 493 P.2d 15 (1972). 1988See, e.g., Gelfand v. People, 196 Colo. 487 , 586 P.2d 1331 (1978); People v. Small, 177 Colo. 118 , 493 P.2d 15 (1972).	1	1988–1988
United States v. Gerrold E. Stevens green ca10 · 1980 2 sentences 1985In United States v. Stevens, 612 F.2d 1226 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 3011 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1980), the court found adequate attenuation from an illegal wiretap when the witness, arrested with the defendant, implicated the defendant more than a month after the witness’ arrest and after entering into a plea bargain. 1985In United States v. Stevens, 612 F.2d 1226 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 3011 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1980), the court found adequate attenuation from an illegal wiretap when the witness, arrested with the defendant, implicated the defendant more than a month after the witness' arrest and after entering into a plea bargain.	1	1985–1985
Kline v. Blake green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1985In United States v. Stevens, 612 F.2d 1226 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 3011 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1980), the court found adequate attenuation from an illegal wiretap when the witness, arrested with the defendant, implicated the defendant more than a month after the witness’ arrest and after entering into a plea bargain. 1985In United States v. Stevens, 612 F.2d 1226 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 3011 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1980), the court found adequate attenuation from an illegal wiretap when the witness, arrested with the defendant, implicated the defendant more than a month after the witness' arrest and after entering into a plea bargain.	1	1985–1985
Stevens v. United States green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1985In United States v. Stevens, 612 F.2d 1226 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 3011 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1980), the court found adequate attenuation from an illegal wiretap when the witness, arrested with the defendant, implicated the defendant more than a month after the witness’ arrest and after entering into a plea bargain. 1985In United States v. Stevens, 612 F.2d 1226 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 3011 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1980), the court found adequate attenuation from an illegal wiretap when the witness, arrested with the defendant, implicated the defendant more than a month after the witness' arrest and after entering into a plea bargain.	1	1985–1985
Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Legal Aid Society of Alameda County green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1985In United States v. Stevens, 612 F.2d 1226 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 3011 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1980), the court found adequate attenuation from an illegal wiretap when the witness, arrested with the defendant, implicated the defendant more than a month after the witness’ arrest and after entering into a plea bargain. 1985In United States v. Stevens, 612 F.2d 1226 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 3011 , 65 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1980), the court found adequate attenuation from an illegal wiretap when the witness, arrested with the defendant, implicated the defendant more than a month after the witness' arrest and after entering into a plea bargain.	1	1985–1985
Elliott v. Edwards Engineering Corp. green cod · 1965 1 sentence 1980Recognizing that the resolution of jurisdictional issues of this type frequently involves an ad hoc analysis of the facts, Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978); Elliot v. Edwards Engineering Corp., 257 F.Supp. 537 (D.Colo.1965) aff’d, 364 F.2d 991 (10th Cir. 1966); Colorado Builder’s Supply Co. v. Herman Brothers Construction Co., 134 Colo. 383 , 304 P.2d 892 (1956), we must apply basic principles of in-personam jurisdiction to the evidence adduced at the motion hearing and determine whether the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction ove	1	1980–1980
Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Francisco green scotus · 1978 2 sentences 1980Recognizing that the resolution of jurisdictional issues of this type frequently involves an ad hoc analysis of the facts, Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978); Elliot v. Edwards Engineering Corp., 257 F.Supp. 537 (D.Colo.1965) aff’d, 364 F.2d 991 (10th Cir. 1966); Colorado Builder’s Supply Co. v. Herman Brothers Construction Co., 134 Colo. 383 , 304 P.2d 892 (1956), we must apply basic principles of in-personam jurisdiction to the evidence adduced at the motion hearing and determine whether the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction ove 1980Recognizing that the resolution of jurisdictional issues of this type frequently involves an ad hoc analysis of the facts, Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978); Elliot v. Edwards Engineering Corp., 257 F.Supp. 537 (D.Colo.1965) aff’d, 364 F.2d 991 (10th Cir. 1966); Colorado Builder’s Supply Co. v. Herman Brothers Construction Co., 134 Colo. 383 , 304 P.2d 892 (1956), we must apply basic principles of in-personam jurisdiction to the evidence adduced at the motion hearing and determine whether the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction ove	1	1980–1980
Colorado Builders' Supply Co. v. Hinman Bros. Construction Co. green colo · 1956 2 sentences 1980Recognizing that the resolution of jurisdictional issues of this type frequently involves an ad hoc analysis of the facts, Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978); Elliot v. Edwards Engineering Corp., 257 F.Supp. 537 (D.Colo.1965) aff’d, 364 F.2d 991 (10th Cir. 1966); Colorado Builder’s Supply Co. v. Herman Brothers Construction Co., 134 Colo. 383 , 304 P.2d 892 (1956), we must apply basic principles of in-personam jurisdiction to the evidence adduced at the motion hearing and determine whether the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction ove 1980Recognizing that the resolution of jurisdictional issues of this type frequently involves an ad hoc analysis of the facts, Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978); Elliot v. Edwards Engineering Corp., 257 F.Supp. 537 (D.Colo.1965) aff’d, 364 F.2d 991 (10th Cir. 1966); Colorado Builder’s Supply Co. v. Herman Brothers Construction Co., 134 Colo. 383 , 304 P.2d 892 (1956), we must apply basic principles of in-personam jurisdiction to the evidence adduced at the motion hearing and determine whether the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction ove	1	1980–1980
James P. Dameron v. W. E. Harson neutral ca5 · 1966 1 sentence 1980Recognizing that the resolution of jurisdictional issues of this type frequently involves an ad hoc analysis of the facts, Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978); Elliot v. Edwards Engineering Corp., 257 F.Supp. 537 (D.Colo.1965) aff’d, 364 F.2d 991 (10th Cir. 1966); Colorado Builder’s Supply Co. v. Herman Brothers Construction Co., 134 Colo. 383 , 304 P.2d 892 (1956), we must apply basic principles of in-personam jurisdiction to the evidence adduced at the motion hearing and determine whether the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction ove	1	1980–1980

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-405 (4)

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

TX 25 (1994–2025) CA 9 (1989–2021) CO 8 (1980–2025) NY 7 (1920–2015) AR 6 (2009–2021) OH 5 (1998–2006) ID 5 (1983–2019) TN 4 (1975–2018) FL 4 (2014–2021) MI 4 (1980–2020) UT 3 (1994–2022) NM 3 (2014–2014) MN 3 (1986–2014) ME 3 (1975–2019) DC 2 (1976–2011) WA 2 (1973–2018) KY 2 (2013–2017) CT 2 (1979–1986) OR 2 (1986–1995) IA 2 (1992–2026) NC 2 (1997–2006)

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