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 1987–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kitchensgreen2 sentences2015See People v. Gonzales, 37 Colo.App. 8 , 9, 543 P.2d 72 , 73 (1975) ("(W)e ... presume that trial counsel, appointed or retained, conscientiously seek, within the limits of preparation, ability, knowledge of the law, and skill at trial, to accomplish a successful result for his client." (internal quotation marks omitted)). • And "when the trial court provides counsel with a copy of the proposed jury instructions, allows a meaningful opportunity for their review, solicits comments from counsel regarding changes or modifications and counsel affirmatively accepts the instructions proposed or give 2015See People v. Gonzales, 37 Colo.App. 8 , 9, 543 P.2d 72 , 73 (1975) ("(W)e ... presume that trial counsel, appointed or retained, conscientiously seek, within the limits of preparation, ability, knowledge of the law, and skill at trial, to accomplish a successful result for his client." (internal quotation marks omitted)). • And "when the trial court provides counsel with a copy of the proposed jury instructions, allows a meaningful opportunity for their review, solicits comments from counsel regarding changes or modifications and counsel affirmatively accepts the instructions proposed or give | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gonzalesgreen1 sentence2015See People v. Gonzales, 37 Colo.App. 8 , 9, 543 P.2d 72 , 73 (1975) ("(W)e ... presume that trial counsel, appointed or retained, conscientiously seek, within the limits of preparation, ability, knowledge of the law, and skill at trial, to accomplish a successful result for his client." (internal quotation marks omitted)). • And "when the trial court provides counsel with a copy of the proposed jury instructions, allows a meaningful opportunity for their review, solicits comments from counsel regarding changes or modifications and counsel affirmatively accepts the instructions proposed or give | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Peoplegreen1 sentence1996See Reed v. People, 745 P.2d 235, 239-40 (Colo.1987) (habeas corpus not appropriate to contest DOC reclassification because of a foreign detainer since such reclassification does not rise to level of constitutional violation). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
green
2 sentences1987Id. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. at 2709 . 1987Id. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. at 2709 . | 2 | 1987–1987 |
City & County of Denver v. Ameritrust Co. National Ass'n
green
2 sentences1995Father cites City & County of Denver v. Ameritrust Co., 832 P.2d 1054 (Colo.App.1992) and Herrera v. Anderson, 736 P.2d 416 (Colo.App.1987) for the proposition that it is within the trial court’s discretion to allow an evidentiary hearing on any written motion. 1995Father cites City & County of Denver v. Ameritrust Co., 832 P.2d 1054 (Colo.App. 1992) and Herrera v. Anderson, 736 P.2d 416 (Colo.App.1987) for the proposition that it is within the trial court's discretion to allow an evidentiary hearing on any written motion. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Herrera v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1995Father cites City & County of Denver v. Ameritrust Co., 832 P.2d 1054 (Colo.App.1992) and Herrera v. Anderson, 736 P.2d 416 (Colo.App.1987) for the proposition that it is within the trial court’s discretion to allow an evidentiary hearing on any written motion. 1995Father cites City & County of Denver v. Ameritrust Co., 832 P.2d 1054 (Colo.App. 1992) and Herrera v. Anderson, 736 P.2d 416 (Colo.App.1987) for the proposition that it is within the trial court's discretion to allow an evidentiary hearing on any written motion. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Davis
green
2 sentences1992Davis, 794 P.2d at 211 . [4] We observed that Munsell "merely stands for the proposition that there is nothing inconsistent in our constitution with the waiver of a trial by jury." Id. 1992Davis, 794 P.2d at 211 . [4] We observed that Munsell "merely stands for the proposition that there is nothing inconsistent in our constitution with the waiver of a trial by jury." Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Fisher
green
1 sentence1988Santobello and Fisher both reflect the fundamental principle that while agreements between a defendant and the government may resemble formal contracts, it is the defendant's detrimental reliance on the government’s promise — and not the presence or absence of a valid contract — that gives rise to a constitutional right to the government’s performance of the contract: Although contractual analogies will most often provide a reliable inclusive test for the existence of a constitutional right and violation, they do not necessarily provide an equally reliable exclusive test_ “[Constitutional deci | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ralph Henry Cooper v. United States
green
1 sentence1988Santobello and Fisher both reflect the fundamental principle that while agreements between a defendant and the government may resemble formal contracts, it is the defendant's detrimental reliance on the government’s promise — and not the presence or absence of a valid contract — that gives rise to a constitutional right to the government’s performance of the contract: Although contractual analogies will most often provide a reliable inclusive test for the existence of a constitutional right and violation, they do not necessarily provide an equally reliable exclusive test_ “[Constitutional deci | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Olim v. Wakinekona
green
2 sentences1987To establish a protected liberty interest under state law, an inmate must show "that particularized standards or criteria guide the State's decisionmakers." Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. at 249 , 103 S.Ct. at 1747 . 1987To establish a protected liberty interest under state law, an inmate must show "that particularized standards or criteria guide the State's decisionmakers." Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. at 249 , 103 S.Ct. at 1747 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.
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.