8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
De Avila v. Estate of DeHerreragreen2 sentences2016C.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) cannot be used 'to civrenmvent the limitations of C.R.C.P..59()." 'The trial court based its analysis on the following sentences that appear in De Avila v. Estate of DeHerrera; 75 P.3d 1144 , 1146 {Colo.App. 2008): "C.R.C.P. 60 is not a substitute for appeal, but instead is meant to provide relief in the interest of justice in extraordinary cireum-stances. 2016The Trial Court’s Analysis ¶20 The trial court reasoned that the motion to set aside had been filed too late because "a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) cannot be used to circumvent the limitations of C.R.C.P. 59(j)." The trial court based its analysis on the following sentences that appear in De Avila v. Estate of DeHerrera , 75 P.3d 1144, 1146 (Colo. App. 2003): "C.R.C.P. 60 is not a substitute for appeal, but instead is meant to provide relief in the interest of justice in extraordinary circumstances. | 2 | 3 |
Tallitsch v. Child Support Services, Inc.green1 sentence2014See Tallitsch, 926 P.2d at 147 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bartowsheskigreen1 sentence1996Here, defendant tendered, and the trial court rejected, an instruction that defined “force” as “physical force applied to or against the victim at any time during the course of the transaction.” The court instead instructed the jury that the phrase “by use of force” meant “physical force directed by the perpetrator against the victim to an extent that the victim is unable to retain control over the thing of value.” The trial court based this instruction on People v. Bartowsheski, 661 P.2d 235, 244 (Colo.1983), in which our supreme court held that for purposes of § 18-4-301(1): [Property is tak | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Marriage of Vittetoe
green
1 sentence2026Statutory Guideline Not Treated as Presumptive ¶ 34 Husband, citing In re Marriage of Vittetoe, 2016 COA 71, ¶ 12 , argues that the court based its analysis about the amount and duration of maintenance exclusively on the statutory guidelines, improperly treating the guidelines as presumptive. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Terry v. Salazar
green
2 sentences1996This was based on its analysis that "[o]nce ownership was joined, the fence no longer served as an external boundary, but only as an internal barrier." Id. 1996This was based on its analysis that “[o]nce ownership was joined, the fence no longer served as an external boundary, but only as an internal barrier.” Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gilbert v. Nixon
green
1 sentence1983The trial court based its instruction on language in Gilbert v. Nixon, 429 F.2d 348 (10th Cir.1970). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.