8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reutter v. Webergreen1 sentence2011See Reutter, 179 P.3d at 980 . | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Trujillogreen1 sentence2007Cf. Johnson v. Trujillo, 977 P.2d 152, 157 (Colo.1999); Clark v. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Velardegreen2 sentences2002See People v. Velarde, 200 Colo. 374 , 616 P.2d 104 (1980). 2002See People v. Velarde, 200 Colo. 374 , 616 P.2d 104 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. District Court, Second Judicial District, City & County of Denvergreen1 sentence1999See id. at 9 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Angelgreen1 sentence1989See, e.g., State v. Angel, 319 S.E.2d 388 (W.Va.1984) (misstating of elements of offense charged in jury instruction submitted by defendant was subject to invited error doctrine where defendant attempted to benefit from instruction in closing argument). [1] See, e.g., People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293 (Colo. 1986) (invited error rule precludes consideration of jury instruction, tendered by defense counsel and given by court, which limits heat of passion defense to second degree assault and does not extend to first degree assault); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973) (where d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Collinsgreen2 sentences1989See, e.g., State v. Angel, 319 S.E.2d 388 (W.Va.1984) (misstating of elements of offense charged in jury instruction submitted by defendant was subject to invited error doctrine where defendant attempted to benefit from instruction in closing argument). [1] See, e.g., People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293 (Colo. 1986) (invited error rule precludes consideration of jury instruction, tendered by defense counsel and given by court, which limits heat of passion defense to second degree assault and does not extend to first degree assault); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973) (where d 1989See, e.g., People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293 (Colo.1986) (invited error rule precludes consideration of jury instruction, tendered by defense counsel and given by court, which limits heat of passion defense to second degree assault and does not extend to first degree assault); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973) (where defense counsel on cross-examination asked open-ended question that elicited the very information which defense counsel had requested the court to caution witnesses against offering in their testimony, invited error rule precluded consideration of whether defe | 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. Sapp
green
2 sentences2005Id. 2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Harris v. People
green
1 sentence1996Harris v. People, 888 P.2d 259 (Colo.1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gray v. People
green
2 sentences1989See, e.g., People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293 (Colo.1986) (invited error rule precludes consideration of jury instruction, tendered by defense counsel and given by court, which limits heat of passion defense to second degree assault and does not extend to first degree assault); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973) (where defense counsel on cross-examination asked open-ended question that elicited the very information which defense counsel had requested the court to caution witnesses against offering in their testimony, invited error rule precluded consideration of whether defe 1989See, e.g., People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293 (Colo.1986) (invited error rule precludes consideration of jury instruction, tendered by defense counsel and given by court, which limits heat of passion defense to second degree assault and does not extend to first degree assault); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973) (where defense counsel on cross-examination asked open-ended question that elicited the very information which defense counsel had requested the court to caution witnesses against offering in their testimony, invited error rule precluded consideration of whether defe | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Shackelford
green
2 sentences1989See, e.g., People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293 (Colo.1986) (invited error rule precludes consideration of jury instruction, tendered by defense counsel and given by court, which limits heat of passion defense to second degree assault and does not extend to first degree assault); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973) (where defense counsel on cross-examination asked open-ended question that elicited the very information which defense counsel had requested the court to caution witnesses against offering in their testimony, invited error rule precluded consideration of whether defe 1989See, e.g., People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293 (Colo.1986) (invited error rule precludes consideration of jury instruction, tendered by defense counsel and given by court, which limits heat of passion defense to second degree assault and does not extend to first degree assault); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973) (where defense counsel on cross-examination asked open-ended question that elicited the very information which defense counsel had requested the court to caution witnesses against offering in their testimony, invited error rule precluded consideration of whether defe | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Stilley v. People
neutral
2 sentences1989See, e.g., People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293 (Colo.1986) (invited error rule precludes consideration of jury instruction, tendered by defense counsel and given by court, which limits heat of passion defense to second degree assault and does not extend to first degree assault); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973) (where defense counsel on cross-examination asked open-ended question that elicited the very information which defense counsel had requested the court to caution witnesses against offering in their testimony, invited error rule precluded consideration of whether defe 1989See, e.g., People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293 (Colo.1986) (invited error rule precludes consideration of jury instruction, tendered by defense counsel and given by court, which limits heat of passion defense to second degree assault and does not extend to first degree assault); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973) (where defense counsel on cross-examination asked open-ended question that elicited the very information which defense counsel had requested the court to caution witnesses against offering in their testimony, invited error rule precluded consideration of whether defe | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Hanlon v. Woodhouse
green
2 sentences1978Under Colorado law, information acquired by a physician is privileged only if it was obtained “in attending the patient” and “was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient.” Section 13-90-107(1)(d), supra; Hanlon v. Woodhouse, 113 Colo. 504 , 160 P.2d 998 (1945); Cook v. People, 60 Colo. 263 , 153 P. 214 (1915). *389 For this reason, before ruling on the prosecution’s claim of privilege on behalf of Mrs. D., the trial court should have determined whether the particular information which defense counsel sought to elicit from the doctor was in fact necessary for treatment. 1978Under Colorado law, information acquired by a physician is privileged only if it was obtained “in attending the patient” and “was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient.” Section 13-90-107(1)(d), supra; Hanlon v. Woodhouse, 113 Colo. 504 , 160 P.2d 998 (1945); Cook v. People, 60 Colo. 263 , 153 P. 214 (1915). *389 For this reason, before ruling on the prosecution’s claim of privilege on behalf of Mrs. D., the trial court should have determined whether the particular information which defense counsel sought to elicit from the doctor was in fact necessary for treatment. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Cook v. People
green
2 sentences1978Under Colorado law, information acquired by a physician is privileged only if it was obtained “in attending the patient” and “was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient.” Section 13-90-107(1)(d), supra; Hanlon v. Woodhouse, 113 Colo. 504 , 160 P.2d 998 (1945); Cook v. People, 60 Colo. 263 , 153 P. 214 (1915). *389 For this reason, before ruling on the prosecution’s claim of privilege on behalf of Mrs. D., the trial court should have determined whether the particular information which defense counsel sought to elicit from the doctor was in fact necessary for treatment. 1978Under Colorado law, information acquired by a physician is privileged only if it was obtained “in attending the patient” and “was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient.” Section 13-90-107(1)(d), supra; Hanlon v. Woodhouse, 113 Colo. 504 , 160 P.2d 998 (1945); Cook v. People, 60 Colo. 263 , 153 P. 214 (1915). *389 For this reason, before ruling on the prosecution’s claim of privilege on behalf of Mrs. D., the trial court should have determined whether the particular information which defense counsel sought to elicit from the doctor was in fact necessary for treatment. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.