8 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Batson v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2025Batson, 476 U.S. at 89 . 2025Batson, 476 U.S. at 89 . | 1 | 4 |
People v. Reaudgreen1 sentence2025Standard of Review ¶ 21 A trial court’s denial of a juror challenge for cause and restrictions on voir dire are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 11 People v. Oliver, 2020 COA 97 , ¶ 7; People v. Reaud, 821 P.2d 870, 871 (Colo. App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Wallace v. Morrisongreen1 sentence2019Thus, under the per se approach, an improper juror challenge cannot be saved. ¶ 19 Under the mixed-motive approach, “[o]nce the claimant has proven improper motivation, dual motivation analysis is available to the person accused of discrimination to [challenge the issue] by showing that the same action would have been taken in the absence of the improper motivation that the claimant has proven.” Howard v. Senkowski, 986 F.2d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Gattis v. Snyder, 278 F.3d 222, 232-35 (3d Cir. 2002); Wallace v. Morrison, 87 F.3d 1271, 1274-75 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Darden | 1 | 1 |
Danny Jones v. Harold Plaster, Sheriff, in His Individual and Official Capacitiesgreen1 sentence2019Thus, under the per se approach, an improper juror challenge cannot be saved. ¶ 19 Under the mixed-motive approach, “[o]nce the claimant has proven improper motivation, dual motivation analysis is available to the person accused of discrimination to [challenge the issue] by showing that the same action would have been taken in the absence of the improper motivation that the claimant has proven.” Howard v. Senkowski, 986 F.2d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Gattis v. Snyder, 278 F.3d 222, 232-35 (3d Cir. 2002); Wallace v. Morrison, 87 F.3d 1271, 1274-75 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Darden | 1 | 1 |
cluster 709030green1 sentence2019Thus, under the per se approach, an improper juror challenge cannot be saved. ¶ 19 Under the mixed-motive approach, “[o]nce the claimant has proven improper motivation, dual motivation analysis is available to the person accused of discrimination to [challenge the issue] by showing that the same action would have been taken in the absence of the improper motivation that the claimant has proven.” Howard v. Senkowski, 986 F.2d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Gattis v. Snyder, 278 F.3d 222, 232-35 (3d Cir. 2002); Wallace v. Morrison, 87 F.3d 1271, 1274-75 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Darden | 1 | 1 |
Clifford Howard v. Daniel A. Senkowski, Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facilitygreen1 sentence2019Thus, under the per se approach, an improper juror challenge cannot be saved. ¶ 19 Under the mixed-motive approach, “[o]nce the claimant has proven improper motivation, dual motivation analysis is available to the person accused of discrimination to [challenge the issue] by showing that the same action would have been taken in the absence of the improper motivation that the claimant has proven.” Howard v. Senkowski, 986 F.2d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Gattis v. Snyder, 278 F.3d 222, 232-35 (3d Cir. 2002); Wallace v. Morrison, 87 F.3d 1271, 1274-75 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Darden | 1 | 1 |
Robert Allen Gattis v. Robert Snyder, Warden, Delaware Correctional Centergreen1 sentence2019Thus, under the per se approach, an improper juror challenge cannot be saved. ¶ 19 Under the mixed-motive approach, “[o]nce the claimant has proven improper motivation, dual motivation analysis is available to the person accused of discrimination to [challenge the issue] by showing that the same action would have been taken in the absence of the improper motivation that the claimant has proven.” Howard v. Senkowski, 986 F.2d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Gattis v. Snyder, 278 F.3d 222, 232-35 (3d Cir. 2002); Wallace v. Morrison, 87 F.3d 1271, 1274-75 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Darden | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bondsteelgreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., People v. Bondsteel, 2015 COA 165, ¶ 77 (cert. granted Oct. 31, 2016). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Younggreen1 sentence2011People v. Young, 16 P.3d 821, 824 (Colo.2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.