8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Summit County Development Corporation v. Bagnoligreen2 sentences2015Corp. v. Bagnoli, 166 Colo. 27, 40 , 441 P.2d 658, 664 (1968). [16 The Lewis factors have been applied in Colorado only to ski lift operators and operators of amusement rides. 1 The supreme court has stated that the underlying basis for its decision determining that ski lift operators are subject to the highest degree of care was that ski lifts "are operated at considerable height from the ground over rough, elevated, often precipitous Colorado terrain. 2015Corp. v. Bagnoli, 166 Colo. 27, 40 , 441 P.2d 658, 664 (1968). [16 The Lewis factors have been applied in Colorado only to ski lift operators and operators of amusement rides. 1 The supreme court has stated that the underlying basis for its decision determining that ski lift operators are subject to the highest degree of care was that ski lifts "are operated at considerable height from the ground over rough, elevated, often precipitous Colorado terrain. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Haywardgreen2 sentences2008"The decision whether to give a Lewis instruction or declare a mistrial is a matter of trial court discretion." People v. Hayward, 55 P.3d 803, 807 (Colo.App.2002). 2008"The decision whether to give a Lewis instruction or declare a mistrial is a matter of trial court discretion." People v. Hayward, 55 P.3d 803, 807 (Colo.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Barnardgreen2 sentences2002People v. Barnard, 12 P.3d 290, 295 (Colo.App.2000). 2002People v. Barnard, 12 P.3d 290, 295 (Colo.App.2000). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Raglandgreen2 sentences2000See People v. Lewis, supra (an instruction that requires a juror to surrender honestly held beliefs is antithetical to the requirement of unanimity); see also People v. Ragland, 747 P.2d 4 (Colo.App.1987). 2000See People v. Lewis, supra (an instruction that requires a juror to surrender honestly held beliefs is antithetical to the requirement of unanimity); see also People v. Ragland, 747 P.2d 4 (Colo.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2000See People v. Lewis, supra (an instruction that requires a juror to surrender honestly held beliefs is antithetical to the requirement of unanimity); see also People v. Ragland, 747 P.2d 4 (Colo.App.1987). 2000See People v. Lewis, supra (an instruction that requires a juror to surrender honestly held beliefs is antithetical to the requirement of unanimity); see also People v. Ragland, 747 P.2d 4 (Colo.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Buckskin Joe's, Inc.green2 sentences1998We derived these factors directly from our prior decision in Lewis v. Buckskin Joe's, Inc., 156 Colo. 46 , *73 56, 396 P.2d 933, 938-39 (1964), wherein we held that amusement ride operators must "exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation" of the ride. [2] Underlying our adoption in Bagnoli of the Lewis factors is that ski lifts are operated at considerable height from the ground over rough, elevated, often precipitous Colorado terrain. 1998We derived these factors directly from our prior decision in Lewis v. Buckskin Joe's, Inc., 156 Colo. 46 , *73 56, 396 P.2d 933, 938-39 (1964), wherein we held that amusement ride operators must "exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the practical operation" of the ride. [2] Underlying our adoption in Bagnoli of the Lewis factors is that ski lifts are operated at considerable height from the ground over rough, elevated, often precipitous Colorado terrain. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2024To the extent the Lewis test for “close family members” acting with a “mutual purpose” applies, the district court’s findings further establish that Keith “benefit[ted] from . . . a significant deviation from that mutual purpose.” Lewis, 189 P.3d 1134 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Operation of a ski lift thus entails both greater danger and greater responsibility than cireumstances involving ordinary care." Bayer, 960 P.2d at 73 . 117 Separate from, but similar to, the concept of increased risk for passengers encompassed by the Lewis factors is the common law concept of inherently dangerous activities. 2015Operation of a ski lift thus entails both greater danger and greater responsibility than cireumstances involving ordinary care." Bayer, 960 P.2d at 73 . 117 Separate from, but similar to, the concept of increased risk for passengers encompassed by the Lewis factors is the common law concept of inherently dangerous activities. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lembke Plumbing and Heating v. Hayutin
green
2 sentences2012T 47 The supreme court has since reaffirmed the Lewis rule that a contractor has a duty to third persons while at work on a project in Pioneer Construction, 176 Colo. at 260 , 490 P.2d at 74 , and in Bath Excavating & Construction Co. v. Wills, 847 P.2d 1141 (Colo.1993) (contractor still actively excavating water pipes owed a duty of care to a third-party worker injured by the company's negligent performance). €48 The court appears to have first addressed a contractor's tort duty after work on the project has been completed in Lembke Plumbing & Heating v. Hayutin, 148 Colo. 334 , 366 P.2d 673 2012T 47 The supreme court has since reaffirmed the Lewis rule that a contractor has a duty to third persons while at work on a project in Pioneer Construction, 176 Colo. at 260 , 490 P.2d at 74 , and in Bath Excavating & Construction Co. v. Wills, 847 P.2d 1141 (Colo.1993) (contractor still actively excavating water pipes owed a duty of care to a third-party worker injured by the company's negligent performance). €48 The court appears to have first addressed a contractor's tort duty after work on the project has been completed in Lembke Plumbing & Heating v. Hayutin, 148 Colo. 334 , 366 P.2d 673 | 1 | 2012–2012 |
PIONEER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. Richardson
green
2 sentences2012T 47 The supreme court has since reaffirmed the Lewis rule that a contractor has a duty to third persons while at work on a project in Pioneer Construction, 176 Colo. at 260 , 490 P.2d at 74 , and in Bath Excavating & Construction Co. v. Wills, 847 P.2d 1141 (Colo.1993) (contractor still actively excavating water pipes owed a duty of care to a third-party worker injured by the company's negligent performance). €48 The court appears to have first addressed a contractor's tort duty after work on the project has been completed in Lembke Plumbing & Heating v. Hayutin, 148 Colo. 334 , 366 P.2d 673 2012T 47 The supreme court has since reaffirmed the Lewis rule that a contractor has a duty to third persons while at work on a project in Pioneer Construction, 176 Colo. at 260 , 490 P.2d at 74 , and in Bath Excavating & Construction Co. v. Wills, 847 P.2d 1141 (Colo.1993) (contractor still actively excavating water pipes owed a duty of care to a third-party worker injured by the company's negligent performance). €48 The court appears to have first addressed a contractor's tort duty after work on the project has been completed in Lembke Plumbing & Heating v. Hayutin, 148 Colo. 334 , 366 P.2d 673 | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bath Excavating & Construction Co. v. Wills
green
2 sentences2012T 47 The supreme court has since reaffirmed the Lewis rule that a contractor has a duty to third persons while at work on a project in Pioneer Construction, 176 Colo. at 260 , 490 P.2d at 74 , and in Bath Excavating & Construction Co. v. Wills, 847 P.2d 1141 (Colo.1993) (contractor still actively excavating water pipes owed a duty of care to a third-party worker injured by the company's negligent performance). €48 The court appears to have first addressed a contractor's tort duty after work on the project has been completed in Lembke Plumbing & Heating v. Hayutin, 148 Colo. 334 , 366 P.2d 673 2012T 47 The supreme court has since reaffirmed the Lewis rule that a contractor has a duty to third persons while at work on a project in Pioneer Construction, 176 Colo. at 260 , 490 P.2d at 74 , and in Bath Excavating & Construction Co. v. Wills, 847 P.2d 1141 (Colo.1993) (contractor still actively excavating water pipes owed a duty of care to a third-party worker injured by the company's negligent performance). €48 The court appears to have first addressed a contractor's tort duty after work on the project has been completed in Lembke Plumbing & Heating v. Hayutin, 148 Colo. 334 , 366 P.2d 673 | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Estate of Sorensen v. Sorensen
green
1 sentence1994The personal representative additionally relies on In re Estate of Sorensen, 411 N.W.2d 362 (N.D.1987) in support of his proposition that Lewis’ claim is time barred pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.