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.
8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1909–2010 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Van Zanen v. Qwest Wireless, L.L.C.green1 sentence2010See Restatement § 32 comment f (if a prohibited transaction has been completed, regulatory illegality “will rarely serve as the basis of a claim to recover a payment previously made, because the allowance of the claim would create an unjust enrichment rather than reverse one”); see Van Zanen, 522 F.3d at 1131 (claimants were “not entitled to restitution” against an unlicensed insurance provider “because they have received counterperformance — namely, the receipt of the insurance”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Estate of Hall
green
2 sentences1997In In re Estate of Hall, 936 P.2d 592 (Colo.App.1996), the court of appeals overturned the district court’s dismissal of the claims of respondent (daughter) as being time-barred. 1997In In re Estate of Hall, 936 P.2d 592 (Colo.App.1996), the court of appeals overturned the district court's dismissal of the claims of respondent (daughter) as being time-barred. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Butler v. Phillips
green
2 sentences1912It was ruled in Butler v. Phil lips, 38 Colo. 378 , that in a proceeding upon the allowance of a claim against the estate of a decedent, the wife of the claimant is a competent witness to testify in favor of her husband. 1912It was ruled in Butler v. Phil lips, 38 Colo. 378 , that in a proceeding upon the allowance of a claim against the estate of a decedent, the wife of the claimant is a competent witness to testify in favor of her husband. | 2 | 1912–1912 |
Griffith v. Wright
green
1 sentence1932In the case of Griffith v. Wright, 6 Colo. 248 , the elements of estoppel are fully set forth and discussed, and, while this case has been frequently cited with approval, the law therein announced has never been criticized or modified, and is now the settled law in this state. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Deeble v. Alerton
neutral
1 sentence1924This was approved in Deeble v. Alerton, 58 Colo. 166, 171 , 143 Pac. 1096 , Ann. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Wilson v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence1924In Wilson v. Wilson, 55 Colo. 70 , 132 Pac. 67 , the court adopted the theory that the widow’s allowance was a claim against the estate and not an interest in it. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Hobson v. Hobson
green
1 sentence1909The case, Hobson v. Hobson, 40 Colo. 332 , holds that the administrator is not required to specify objections to a claim, but that such objection as he may have to the allowance of a claim may be orally interposed at any time before or at the hearing. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.