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 1 courts 1995–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tidwell v. City and County of Denvergreen2 sentences2022Tidwell, 83 P.3d at 85 . 2022Standard of Review ¶ 25 “Whether a claim falls within an exception to the [Act’s] waiver of sovereign immunity is a questio n of subject matter jurisdiction and, if raised before trial, it appro priately is addressed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).” Fogg v. Ma caluso , 892 P.2d 271, 277 (Colo. 1995). “[W]here a plaintiff has sue d a governmental entity and that entity interposes a motion to dismi ss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonst rating that governmental immunity has been waived.” Ti dwell v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 83 P.3d 75, 85 (Colo. 2003). ¶ 26 “[W]here, as he | 1 | 2 |
Fogg v. MacAlusogreen1 sentence2022Standard of Review ¶ 25 “Whether a claim falls within an exception to the [Act’s] waiver of sovereign immunity is a questio n of subject matter jurisdiction and, if raised before trial, it appro priately is addressed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).” Fogg v. Ma caluso , 892 P.2d 271, 277 (Colo. 1995). “[W]here a plaintiff has sue d a governmental entity and that entity interposes a motion to dismi ss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonst rating that governmental immunity has been waived.” Ti dwell v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 83 P.3d 75, 85 (Colo. 2003). ¶ 26 “[W]here, as he | 1 | 1 |
Swieckowski Ex Rel. Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collinsgreen1 sentence1999See Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collins, 934 P.2d 1380 (Colo.1997)(if-the facts are undisputed, the issue of governmental immunity under the GIA is one of law and the appellate court is not bound by the trial court’s determination). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Padilla Ex Rel. Padilla v. School District No. 1 in the City & County of Denver
green
2 sentences2025But where, as here, the relevant facts are undisputed, the issue of governmental immunity is one of law, and the district court may rule on the jurisdictional issue without an evidentiary hearing.1 Id. 2014Padilla, 25 P.3d at 1180 . | 2 | 2014–2025 |
Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster
green
2 sentences1995A. In support of its argument that the trial court erred in its failure to hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the issue of governmental immunity, defendant cites Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, supra . 1995A. In support of its argument that the trial court erred in its failure to hold a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the issue of governmental immunity, defendant cites Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, supra. That case, however, unlike this one, involved a factual dispute between the parties which the trial court should have resolved in a pretrial hearing. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Corsentino v. Cordova
green
1 sentence2022We strictly construe the exceptions to waiver provisions because “the ultimate 5 effect of the exceptions is to grant immunity.” Corsentino, 4 P.3d at 1086 . ¶ 12 An issue of governmental immunity under the CGIA presents a question of subject matter jurisdiction to be determined under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Foster v. Board of Governors ex rel. Colorado State University
green
2 sentences2022Standard of Review ¶ 25 “Whether a claim falls within an exception to the [Act’s] waiver of sovereign immunity is a questio n of subject matter jurisdiction and, if raised before trial, it appro priately is addressed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).” Fogg v. Ma caluso , 892 P.2d 271, 277 (Colo. 1995). “[W]here a plaintiff has sue d a governmental entity and that entity interposes a motion to dismi ss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonst rating that governmental immunity has been waived.” Ti dwell v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 83 P.3d 75, 85 (Colo. 2003). ¶ 26 “[W]here, as he 2022Standard of Review ¶ 25 “Whether a claim falls within an exception to the [Act’s] waiver of sovereign immunity is a questio n of subject matter jurisdiction and, if raised before trial, it appro priately is addressed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).” Fogg v. Ma caluso , 892 P.2d 271, 277 (Colo. 1995). “[W]here a plaintiff has sue d a governmental entity and that entity interposes a motion to dismi ss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonst rating that governmental immunity has been waived.” Ti dwell v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 83 P.3d 75, 85 (Colo. 2003). ¶ 26 “[W]here, as he | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Joy Maphis v. City of Boulder, Colorado
green
1 sentence2022Maphis v. City of Boulder, 2022 CO 10, ¶ 13 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.