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 1980–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re the Marriage of Dean and Cookgreen1 sentence2024See In re Marriage of Dean, 2017 COA 51, ¶ 13 . ¶ 17 The court appropriately weighed the evidence adduced at the hearing and concluded that the child had a more significant connection to Colorado than to Austria. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fowlergreen2 sentences1983See People v. Fowler, 183 Colo. 300 , 516 P.2d 428 (1973). 1983See People v. Fowler, 183 Colo. 300 , 516 P.2d 428 (1973). | 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 in Interest of CAK
green
2 sentences1987People in Interest of C.A.K., supra . 1987People in Interest of C.A.K., supra. L.G. further alleges that the trial court erred in finding that she had problems with memory and intellectual functioning because these findings were made without any evidence in the record to support them. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Board of Assessment Appeals v. AM/FM International
green
1 sentence2018Similar to the entity in AM/FM International, nothing in the evidence adduced at the hearing in this case suggests that a child care center on a state university campus, such as the Center, is a “primary responsibility of government” or that the Center “directly performs any activities for which the government is responsible or 38 which the government would be forced to assume in the absence” of the Center’s activities.5 AM/FM Int’l, 940 P.2d at 346 . ¶ 68 Therefore, we cannot conclude that the BAA abused its discretion in concluding that, [a]lthough having access to child care for [CU Anschut | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Castaneda v. Partida
green
2 sentences1993A far more useful case for analogy purposes is Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482 , 97 S.Ct. 1272 , 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977), also cited by the majority. 1993A far more useful case for analogy purposes is Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482 , 97 S.Ct. 1272 , 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977), also cited by the majority. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Thompson v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF ROARING FORK SCH.
green
1 sentence1984Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1981); Thompson v. Board of Education, 668 P.2d 954 (Colo.App.1983); § 24-4-106(11), C.R.S. [[Image here]] Engelbrecht also contends that thé- hearing officer’s findings do not reflect or discuss all of the evidence adduced at the hearing. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Ricci v. Davis
green
1 sentence1984Ricci v. Davis, 627 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1981); Thompson v. Board of Education, 668 P.2d 954 (Colo.App.1983); § 24-4-106(11), C.R.S. [[Image here]] Engelbrecht also contends that thé- hearing officer’s findings do not reflect or discuss all of the evidence adduced at the hearing. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Campbell v. Republic Indemnity Co. of America
green
2 sentences1980The issue of mutual mistake is ordinarily a question of fact, Campbell v. Republic Indemnity Co., 149 Cal.App.2d 476 , 308 P.2d 425 (1957), and fact findings made by the trial court sitting as the trier of fact and based upon the conflicting testimony of witnesses will not be set aside where supported by the evidence. 1980The issue of mutual mistake is ordinarily a question of fact, Campbell v. Republic Indemnity Co., 149 Cal.App.2d 476 , 308 P.2d 425 (1957), and fact findings made by the trial court sitting as the trier of fact and based upon the conflicting testimony of witnesses will not be set aside where supported by the evidence. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.