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 1952–2008 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. Watlinggreen1 sentence2008See State v. Watling, 211 S.W.3d 202, 207 (Mo.Ct.App.2007) (offer not admissible under rule of completeness where the discussion of the test did not cause the defendant to confess; evidence of offer not necessary to give the jury a complete picture of any contested evidence). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Meltongreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., People v. Melton, 910 P.2d 672 , 676 n. 5 (Colo.1996). 2002See, e.g., People v. Melton, 910 P.2d 672 , 676 n. 5 (Colo.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downsgreen1 sentence1981See, e. g, Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613 (D.C.Cir.1963); Kansas Electric Power Co. v. Janis, 194 F.2d 942 (10th Cir. 1952); United Pacific/Reliance Insurance Co. v. Kelley, 127 Ariz. 87 , 618 P.2d 257 (App.1980); Manning v. Zapata, 350 So.2d 1045 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 (D.C.App.1977); Holibaugh v. Cox, 167 Ohio 340 , 148 N.E.2d 677 (1958). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Guttermangreen2 sentences1965See also United States v. Gutterman, 147 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1945), 157 A.L.R. 1221 for a full discussion of this principle decided under circumstances very similar to those present in the case before us. 1965See also United States v. Gutterman, 147 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1945), 157 A.L.R. 1221 for a full discussion of this principle decided under circumstances very similar to those present in the case before us. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morgan v. United States
green
2 sentences1974We held in Big Top that “[a] fair hearing in accordance with due process requires, as a minimum, that the administrative officer who decides — but does not personally hear the evidence — must read and consider the evidence adduced in his absence.” Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468 , 56 S.Ct. 906 , 80 L.Ed. 1288 (1935). 1974We held in Big Top that “[a] fair hearing in accordance with due process requires, as a minimum, that the administrative officer who decides — but does not personally hear the evidence — must read and consider the evidence adduced in his absence.” Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468 , 56 S.Ct. 906 , 80 L.Ed. 1288 (1935). | 2 | 1974–1974 |
Strother v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence1981See, e. g, Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613 (D.C.Cir.1963); Kansas Electric Power Co. v. Janis, 194 F.2d 942 (10th Cir. 1952); United Pacific/Reliance Insurance Co. v. Kelley, 127 Ariz. 87 , 618 P.2d 257 (App.1980); Manning v. Zapata, 350 So.2d 1045 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 (D.C.App.1977); Holibaugh v. Cox, 167 Ohio 340 , 148 N.E.2d 677 (1958). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Kansas Electric Power Co. Of Leavenworth, Kan. v. Janis
green
1 sentence1981See, e. g, Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613 (D.C.Cir.1963); Kansas Electric Power Co. v. Janis, 194 F.2d 942 (10th Cir. 1952); United Pacific/Reliance Insurance Co. v. Kelley, 127 Ariz. 87 , 618 P.2d 257 (App.1980); Manning v. Zapata, 350 So.2d 1045 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 (D.C.App.1977); Holibaugh v. Cox, 167 Ohio 340 , 148 N.E.2d 677 (1958). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United Pacific/Reliance Insurance v. Kelley
green
2 sentences1981See, e. g, Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613 (D.C.Cir.1963); Kansas Electric Power Co. v. Janis, 194 F.2d 942 (10th Cir. 1952); United Pacific/Reliance Insurance Co. v. Kelley, 127 Ariz. 87 , 618 P.2d 257 (App.1980); Manning v. Zapata, 350 So.2d 1045 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 (D.C.App.1977); Holibaugh v. Cox, 167 Ohio 340 , 148 N.E.2d 677 (1958). 1981See, e. g, Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613 (D.C.Cir.1963); Kansas Electric Power Co. v. Janis, 194 F.2d 942 (10th Cir. 1952); United Pacific/Reliance Insurance Co. v. Kelley, 127 Ariz. 87 , 618 P.2d 257 (App.1980); Manning v. Zapata, 350 So.2d 1045 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 (D.C.App.1977); Holibaugh v. Cox, 167 Ohio 340 , 148 N.E.2d 677 (1958). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Manning v. Zapata
green
1 sentence1981See, e. g, Link Aviation, Inc. v. Downs, 325 F.2d 613 (D.C.Cir.1963); Kansas Electric Power Co. v. Janis, 194 F.2d 942 (10th Cir. 1952); United Pacific/Reliance Insurance Co. v. Kelley, 127 Ariz. 87 , 618 P.2d 257 (App.1980); Manning v. Zapata, 350 So.2d 1045 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 (D.C.App.1977); Holibaugh v. Cox, 167 Ohio 340 , 148 N.E.2d 677 (1958). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Enlow
green
2 sentences1969It is a word of limitation as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of “a” or “an.” See People v. Enlow, 135 Colo. 249 , 310 P.2d 539 , and the cases cited therein, for a full discussion of this principle. 1969It is a word of limitation as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of “a” or “an.” See People v. Enlow, 135 Colo. 249 , 310 P.2d 539 , and the cases cited therein, for a full discussion of this principle. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Mestas v. Martini
green
2 sentences1952In Mestas v. Martini, 113 Colo. 108 , 155 P. (2d) 161 , will be found a discussion of the doctrine that part performance of an oral contract will, under certain circumstances, avoid application of the statute. 1952In Mestas v. Martini, 113 Colo. 108 , 155 P. (2d) 161 , will be found a discussion of the doctrine that part performance of an oral contract will, under certain circumstances, avoid application of the statute. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.