8 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hawley v. Mowattgreen2 sentences2024“A claim or defense is frivolous if the proponent can present no rational argument based on the evidence or the law to support the claim or defense.” Hawley v. Mowatt, 160 P.3d 421, 427 (Colo. App. 2007). 2024“A claim or defense is frivolous if the proponent can present no rational argument based on the evidence or the law to support the claim or defense.” Hawley v. Mowatt, 160 P.3d 421, 427 (Colo. App. 2007). | 3 | 3 |
Wester Holdings Partnership v. Reecegreen2 sentences2022A groundless document is “one for which a proponent can advance no rational argument based on evidence or the law to support the claim.” Westar Holdings P’ship v. Reece, 991 P.2d 328, 330 (Colo. App. 1999). 2019Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565, 571 (Colo. 2008)). ¶ 41 A division of this court explained that a spurious document is one “for which a proponent can advance no rational argument based on evidence or the law to support the claim.” Westar Holdings, 991 P.2d at 330 . | 2 | 4 |
Remote Switch Systems, Inc. v. Delangisgreen2 sentences2024The party seeking attorney fees “has the burden of proving the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Remote Switch Sys., Inc. v. Delangis, 126 P.3d 269, 275 (Colo. App. 2005). 2024The party seeking attorney fees “has the burden of proving the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Remote Switch Sys., Inc. v. Delangis, 126 P.3d 269, 275 (Colo. App. 2005). | 2 | 2 |
Harris v. Hansongreen2 sentences2014Divisions of this court have defined a groundless document as "one for which a proponent can advance no rational argument based on evidence or the law to support the claim of a lien." Westar Holdings, 991 P.2d at 330 (citing Harris v. Hanson, 821 P.2d 821, 824 (Colo.App.1991)). 159 However, the definition of "spurious lien" does not include "groundless" as an element or component. 1999Harris v. Hanson, 821 P.2d 821 (Colo.App.1991). | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. United States Sentencing Commissiongreen1 sentence2019The “no rational argument” test is 18 similar to the definition of a “[p]atently insubstantial claim[]” as one that is “essentially fictitious.” Davis v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 716 F.3d 660, 667 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Lombard v. Colorado Outdoor Education Center, Inc.green1 sentence2019Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565, 571 (Colo. 2008)). ¶ 41 A division of this court explained that a spurious document is one “for which a proponent can advance no rational argument based on evidence or the law to support the claim.” Westar Holdings, 991 P.2d at 330 . | 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.