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.
9 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Magnetic Engineering, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Officegreen2 sentences2024Claim Appeals Off., 5 P.3d 385 , 388 (Colo. App. 2000). ¶ 34 As the ALJ observed, Dr. Orent testified in detail, consistent with his report, about the reasons he concluded Luis wasn’t at MMI. 2017Id. at 388. 35 ¶ 62 Claimant offers nothing more than one or two conclusory sentences, with no citations to legal authority, addressing his remaining allegations of waiver, striking the final admission, and “multiple” other evidentiary issues. | 1 | 2 |
Shafer Commercial Seating, Inc. v. Industrial Claim Appeals Officegreen2 sentences2007Claim Appeals Office, 85 P.3d 619, 621 (Colo.App. 2003)("the ALJ is not held to a crystalline standard of findings"). 2007Claim Appeals Office, 85 P.3d 619, 621 (Colo.App.2003)(@the ALJ is not held to a crystalline standard of findings"). | 1 | 1 |
George v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF STATE OF COLO.green1 sentence1992See George v. Industrial Commission, 720 P.2d 624 (Colo.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Riddle v. Ampex Corp.
green
2 sentences2000Initially, we note that the ALJ is not held to a crystalline standard in articulating his findings of fact, Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App.1992), and we are able to discern from the order the reasoning which underlies the award of TTD benefits for the period prior to the IME. 2000Initially, we note that the ALJ is not held to a crystalline standard in articulating his findings of fact, Riddle v. Ampex Corp., 839 P.2d 489 (Colo.App.1992), and we are able to discern from the order the reasoning which underlies the award of TTD benefits for the period prior to the IME. | 3 | 2000–2000 |
Crandall v. Watson-Wilson Transportation System, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992There is no obligation to address every issue raised or evidence which is unpersuasive, Crandall v. Watson-Wilson Transportation System, Inc., 171 Colo. 329 , 467 P.2d 48 (1970); nor is the AU held to a crystalline standard in articulating the administrative order. 1992There is no obligation to address every issue raised or evidence which is unpersuasive, Crandall v. Watson-Wilson Transportation System, Inc., 171 Colo. 329 , 467 P.2d 48 (1970); nor is the AU held to a crystalline standard in articulating the administrative order. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Allmendinger v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1986In re Claim of Allmendinger v. Industrial Commission, 40 Colo.App. 210 , 571 P.2d 741 (1977). 1986In re Claim of Allmendinger v. Industrial Commission, 40 Colo.App. 210 , 571 P.2d 741 (1977). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission
neutral
2 sentences1977Where the decision is justified, it may not be set aside "on the technicality of unclarity of expression on the part of the Commission. .." Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission, 128 Colo. 465 , 263 P.2d 817 (1953). 1977Where the decision is justified, it may not be set aside "on the technicality of unclarity of expression on the part of the Commission. .." Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Industrial Commission, 128 Colo. 465 , 263 P.2d 817 (1953). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.