8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Warrengreen2 sentences2025A ruling is “final” when it “end[s] the particular action in which it is entered and leave[s] nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties involved in the proceeding.” Luster v. Brinkman, 250 P.3d 664, 666 (Colo. App. 2010). ¶ 33 Furthermore, a court has discretion to “reconsider and reverse a prior ruling if it determines that . . . ‘it needs to correct its previous ruling because of a legal or factual error.’” People v. Warren, 55 P.3d 809, 813 (Colo. App. 2002) (citation omitted). 2014However, "[a] trial court may, in its discretion, reconsider and reverse a prior ruling if it determines that 'its former ruling is no longer sound because of changed conditions, it needs to correct its previous ruling because of a legal or factual error, an intervening change in the law has occurred, or manifest injustice would result from its original ruling.' " Id. (quoting Janssen v. Denver Career Serv. | 2 | 3 |
Janssen v. Denver Career Service Boardgreen2 sentences2014Bd., 998 P.2d 9 , 15 (Colo.App.1999) ). ¶ 40 The court that makes a decision has the power to reconsider that decision as long as the case remains within its jurisdiction. 2002Bd., 998 P.2d 9, 15 (Colo.App.1999). | 1 | 2 |
Luster v. Brinkmangreen1 sentence2025A ruling is “final” when it “end[s] the particular action in which it is entered and leave[s] nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties involved in the proceeding.” Luster v. Brinkman, 250 P.3d 664, 666 (Colo. App. 2010). ¶ 33 Furthermore, a court has discretion to “reconsider and reverse a prior ruling if it determines that . . . ‘it needs to correct its previous ruling because of a legal or factual error.’” People v. Warren, 55 P.3d 809, 813 (Colo. App. 2002) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Steele v. Lawgreen1 sentence2014Generally speaking, "[al trial court's decision on a motion to reconsider may not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." Steele v. Law, 78 P.3d 1124, 1128 (Colo.App.2003). 147 Again, the only argument that the People raise on appeal is that this Court should adopt Chief Justice Roberts's proposed rule and, in so doing, reverse the trial court's denial of their motion for reconsideration. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Verzuh v. Rouse
green
2 sentences2000Verzuh v. Rouse, 660 P.2d 1301 (Colo.App.1982). 1999Verzuh v. Rouse, 660 P.2d 1301 (Colo.App. 1982). | 3 | 1992–2000 |
Perez v. Witham
green
1 sentence2002Perez v. Witham, 1 P.3d 262 (Colo.App.1999). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People Ex Rel. Gallagher v. District Court Ex Rel. County of Arapahoe
green
2 sentences1992Gallagher v. District Court, 666 P.2d 550 (Colo.1983); it needs to correct its previous ruling because of a legal or factual error; there occurs an intervening change in the law; or the court concludes that manifest injustice would result from its original ruling. 1992Gallagher v. District Court, 666 P.2d 550 (Colo.1983); it needs to correct its previous ruling because of a legal or factual error; there occurs an intervening change in the law; or the court concludes that manifest injustice would result from its original ruling. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.