8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 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. Moreheadgreen2 sentences2020See People v. Morehead, 2019 CO 48, ¶ 10 , 442 P.3d 413, 417 (describing law of the case doctrine as it relates to reconsideration by the trial court making a decision as a “discretionary rule of practice” (quoting People ex rel. 2020See People v. Morehead, 2019 CO 48, ¶ 10 , 442 P.3d 413, 417 (describing law of the case doctrine as it relates to reconsideration by the trial court making a decision as a “discretionary rule of practice” (quoting People ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2010Vasquez v. People, 173 P.3d 1099, 1103 (Colo.2007); see Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 , -, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2684 , 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) ("The manner in which the rule was applied [at common law] makes plain that uncon-fronted testimony would not be admitted without a showing that the defendant intended to prevent a witness from testifying." (emphasis omitted)). 2010Vasquez v. People, 173 P.3d 1099, 1103 (Colo.2007); see Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 , -, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2684 , 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) ("The manner in which the rule was applied [at common law] makes plain that uncon-fronted testimony would not be admitted without a showing that the defendant intended to prevent a witness from testifying." (emphasis omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Vasquez v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2010Vasquez v. People, 173 P.3d 1099, 1103 (Colo.2007); see Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 , -, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2684 , 171 L.Ed.2d 488 (2008) ("The manner in which the rule was applied [at common law] makes plain that uncon-fronted testimony would not be admitted without a showing that the defendant intended to prevent a witness from testifying." (emphasis omitted)). 2010Under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, the People have the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that "(1) the witness is unavailable; (2) the defendant was involved in, or responsible for, procuring the unavailability of the witness; and (8) the defendant acted with the intent to deprive the criminal justice system of evidence." Vasquez, 173 P.3d at 1104 . | 1 | 1 |
Cline v. City of Bouldergreen2 sentences1992See Cline v. Boulder, 35 Colo.App. 349 , 532 P.2d 770 (1975). 1992See Cline v. Boulder, 35 Colo.App. 349 , 532 P.2d 770 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Hercules Equipment Co. v. Smithgreen2 sentences1981See Cox v. Pearl Investment Co., 168 Colo. 67 , 450 P.2d 60 (1969); see generally Hercules Equipment v. Smith, 138 Colo. 458 , 335 P.2d 255 (1959). *55 The defendants claim immunity from any claims of plaintiffs because of their acts in taking the child into protective custody. 1981See Cox v. Pearl Investment Co., 168 Colo. 67 , 450 P.2d 60 (1969); see generally Hercules Equipment v. Smith, 138 Colo. 458 , 335 P.2d 255 (1959). *55 The defendants claim immunity from any claims of plaintiffs because of their acts in taking the child into protective custody. | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Pearl Investment Companygreen2 sentences1981See Cox v. Pearl Investment Co., 168 Colo. 67 , 450 P.2d 60 (1969); see generally Hercules Equipment v. Smith, 138 Colo. 458 , 335 P.2d 255 (1959). *55 The defendants claim immunity from any claims of plaintiffs because of their acts in taking the child into protective custody. 1981See Cox v. Pearl Investment Co., 168 Colo. 67 , 450 P.2d 60 (1969); see generally Hercules Equipment v. Smith, 138 Colo. 458 , 335 P.2d 255 (1959). *55 The defendants claim immunity from any claims of plaintiffs because of their acts in taking the child into protective custody. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Ass'n
green
1 sentence2026In doing so, “we look to the entire statutory scheme in order to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts,” and we give “words and phrases . . . their plain and ordinary meanings.” UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Ass’n, 2017 CO 107, ¶ 22 . ¶ 23 Section 19-1-108 provides, in pertinent part, (3)(a.5) Magistrates shall conduct hearings in the manner provided for the hearing of cases by the court. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 381 . {18 At the same time, we have explained that the term "same conduct" in this context refers to "a single act or single behavioral incident that results in the commission of more than one offense," id. 6 and that "[plroof of different crimes is interrelated if the proof of one crime forms a substantial portion of proof of the other," Rogers, 742 P.2d at 919 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Miranda
green
2 sentences2013Id. at 381 . {18 At the same time, we have explained that the term "same conduct" in this context refers to "a single act or single behavioral incident that results in the commission of more than one offense," id. 6 and that "[plroof of different crimes is interrelated if the proof of one crime forms a substantial portion of proof of the other," Rogers, 742 P.2d at 919 . 2013Id. at 381 . {18 At the same time, we have explained that the term "same conduct" in this context refers to "a single act or single behavioral incident that results in the commission of more than one offense," id. 6 and that "[plroof of different crimes is interrelated if the proof of one crime forms a substantial portion of proof of the other," Rogers, 742 P.2d at 919 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Woodmoor Improvement Ass'n v. Brenner
green
1 sentence1998In addition, while a unit owners’ association is not converted into a governmental entity by the Act, Woodmoor Improvement Ass’n v. Brenner, 919 P.2d 928 (Colo.App.1996), we note that counties and municipalities routinely adopt ordinances which restrict or regulate the use of property in the same manner as the requirement at issue here, without the necessity of recording in order to put owners of real estate on notice. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
City and County of Denver v. Desert Truck Sales, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.