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 1982–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Boothe v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2025People v. Dunlap, 124 P.3d 780, 817 (Colo. App. 2004) (“Failure to object to a clarifying instruction, combined with active participation in the response, waives any right to assert error on appeal unless the response is so ‘patently wrong’ as to constitute a ‘misstatement of the law.’” (quoting Boothe v. People, 814 P.2d 372, 378 (Colo. 1991) 22 (Lohr, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment))). 2004Failure to object to a clarifying instruction, combined with active participation in the response, waives any right to assert error on appeal unless the response is so “patently wrong” as to constitute a “misstatement of the law.” Boothe v. People, 814 P.2d 372, 378 (Colo.1991)(Lohr, J., concurring); see Valley v. People, 165 Colo. 555, 561 , 441 P.2d 14, 16 (1968). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Dunlapgreen2 sentences2025People v. Dunlap, 124 P.3d 780, 817 (Colo. App. 2004) (“Failure to object to a clarifying instruction, combined with active participation in the response, waives any right to assert error on appeal unless the response is so ‘patently wrong’ as to constitute a ‘misstatement of the law.’” (quoting Boothe v. People, 814 P.2d 372, 378 (Colo. 1991) 22 (Lohr, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment))). 2025People v. Dunlap, 124 P.3d 780, 817 (Colo. App. 2004) (“Failure to object to a clarifying instruction, combined with active participation in the response, waives any right to assert error on appeal unless the response is so ‘patently wrong’ as to constitute a ‘misstatement of the law.’” (quoting Boothe v. People, 814 P.2d 372, 378 (Colo. 1991) 22 (Lohr, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment))). | 1 | 1 |
Waits v. United Fire & Casualty Co.green1 sentence2012Waits, 572 N.W.2d at 576, 578 (the trial court "erred ... in failing to explain to the jury how it was to decide which instruction was applicable under the facts of this case"); accord Rowe, 702 N.W.2d at 741-42; see also CJI-Civ. 4th 6:8 note 5 (2011) (where a court gives eggshell and aggravation instructions, "an additional clarifying instruction or modification of [the instructions] may be necessary"). . | 1 | 1 |
Valley v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2004Failure to object to a clarifying instruction, combined with active participation in the response, waives any right to assert error on appeal unless the response is so “patently wrong” as to constitute a “misstatement of the law.” Boothe v. People, 814 P.2d 372, 378 (Colo.1991)(Lohr, J., concurring); see Valley v. People, 165 Colo. 555, 561 , 441 P.2d 14, 16 (1968). 2004Failure to object to a clarifying instruction, combined with active participation in the response, waives any right to assert error on appeal unless the response is so “patently wrong” as to constitute a “misstatement of the law.” Boothe v. People, 814 P.2d 372, 378 (Colo.1991)(Lohr, J., concurring); see Valley v. People, 165 Colo. 555, 561 , 441 P.2d 14, 16 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fichtnergreen2 sentences2001See People v. Fichtner, 869 P.2d 539 (Colo.1994). 2001See People v. Fichtner, 869 P.2d 539 (Colo.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1991Id.; see generally Crim.P. 52(b) (defining plain error); Wilson v. People, 743 P.2d 415, 419-20 (elaborating on that definition). 1991Id.; see generally Crim.P. 52(b) (defining plain error); Wilson v. People, 743 P.2d 415, 419-20 (elaborating on that definition). | 1 | 1 |
Caldwell v. Katsgreen2 sentences1982See Caldwell v. Kats, 193 Colo. 384 , 567 P.2d 371 (1977). 1982See Caldwell v. Kats, 193 Colo. 384 , 567 P.2d 371 (1977). | 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 People of the State of Colorado v. Timothy Albert Kembel.
green
1 sentence2025Thus, the trial court cured any misleading impression the jury may have had as to why K.S. was in therapy by instructing the jury that “in addition to her testimony, one of the reasons [K.S.] was in therapy was due to abuse allegedly committed by her mother.” See People v. Kembel, 2023 CO 5 , ¶ 50 (There is a “presumption of law” that jurors are generally able to “understand and follow a trial court’s limiting instructions.” (quoting Qwest Servs. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Serravo
green
1 sentence1997The court stated that “any such instruction” should also “expressly inform the jury that the phrase ‘incapable of distinguishing right from wrong’ does not refer to a purely personal and subjective standard of morality.” People v. Serravo, supra, 823 P.2d at 139 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Stephen A. Walsh, in No. 15639 v. Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc., in No. 15640 v. Edward Stern and Co., Inc
green
2 sentences1984Walsh v. Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc., 378 F.2d 409 (3rd Cir.1967); 9 C. 1984Walsh v. Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc., 378 F.2d 409 (3rd Cir.1967); 9 C. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.