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 1995–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Olanogreen2 sentences2015See infra ¶ 14 n.5 (discussing the difference between waiver and forfeiture as articulated in Olano, 507 U.S. at 733 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ). 2015See infra ¶ 14 n.5 (discussing the difference between waiver and forfeiture as articulated in Olano, 507 U.S. at 733 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Redigergreen1 sentence2021See e.g., People v. Rediger, 2018 CO 32, ¶¶ 39-47 (discussing the difference between waiver and forfeiture). 17 determined whether it approved of the selected jury. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Minnersgreen1 sentence2019Id. at ¶ 51, 411 P.3d at 292 ; see also United States v. Minners , 362 F. App'x 931 , 937 (10th Cir. 2010) (noting that there is a difference between the test for deciding whether an error occurred and the "standard for reversal"). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lopezgreen1 sentence2018United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); see People v. Lopez, 129 P.3d 1061, 1065 (Colo. App. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Humane Society of the Pikes Peak Region v. Industrial Claim Appeals Officegreen1 sentence2003If the plain words of the statute "[dlo not correspond to the General Assembly's intent, it is for that body, not this court, to rewrite it." Humane Society v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 26 P.3d 546, 548 (Colo.App.2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kadell
green
1 sentence2019Id. at ¶ 51, 411 P.3d at 292 ; see also United States v. Minners , 362 F. App'x 931 , 937 (10th Cir. 2010) (noting that there is a difference between the test for deciding whether an error occurred and the "standard for reversal"). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Atchison v. City of Englewood
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 308, 463 P.2d at 303 . 1 36 We recognized in Atchison that "there is a difference between the rule against per-petuities and the rule against restraints upon alienation," namely, that "[the rule against perpetuities invalidates interests which vest too remotely," while "[the rule against restraints upon alienation relates to other unreasonable restraints." Id. at 305 , 463 P.2d at 801 . 2014Id. at 308, 463 P.2d at 303 . 1 36 We recognized in Atchison that "there is a difference between the rule against per-petuities and the rule against restraints upon alienation," namely, that "[the rule against perpetuities invalidates interests which vest too remotely," while "[the rule against restraints upon alienation relates to other unreasonable restraints." Id. at 305 , 463 P.2d at 801 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
City of Lakewood v. Brace
green
2 sentences1998The only opinion that addresses the difference between the immunity granted a public entity and that granted a public employee is City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231 (Colo.1996). 1998The only opinion that addresses the difference between the immunity granted a public entity and that granted a public employee is City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231 (Colo.1996). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee
green
2 sentences1995"Where the government is acting as a proprietor, managing its internal operations, ... its action will not be subjected to the heightened review to which its actions as a lawmaker may be subject." International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2701, 2705 , 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (emphasis supplied). 1995"Where the government is acting as a proprietor, managing its internal operations, ... its action will not be subjected to the heightened review to which its actions as a lawmaker may be subject." International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2701, 2705 , 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.