8 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Clinegreen1 sentence2025See id. at ¶ 20 (concluding that public questioning next to a four- 5 lane street — even though at night — was neutral); see also People v. Cline, 2019 CO 33, ¶¶ 21-22 (noting that an interaction in a parking area “in broad daylight” weighed against custody). ¶ 17 Officer Toelle and one other officer initially contacted Martinez. | 1 | 1 |
SEC. & Exch. Comm'n v. Arcturus Corp.green1 sentence2020See Arcturus, 928 F.3d at 419 ; Koch, 928 F.2d at 1479 ; Deutsch Energy Co., 813 F.2d at 1570 ; Youmans, 791 F.2d at 347 . (2) What kind of prior business experience do the partners have, not just as investors but as businesspeople (such as by holding executive positions in organizations)? | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edith Libutti, Doing Business as Lion Crest Stable, a Sole Proprietorship v. United States
green
2 sentences2015Ultimately, the overarching concern should be âwhether the adverse inference is trustworthy under all of the circumstances and will advance the search for the truth.â LiButti , 107 F.3d at 124 . ¶36       And when evidence of a nonparty witnessâs invocation is properly admitted, âthe jury need only be instructed that they are permitted, but not required, to draw an inference adverse to a party from a witnessâs invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination, and that they should not draw such an inference if they find that the witness invoked the privilege for reasons 2015We are informed in our analysis by the nonexclusive factors set forth by the Second Circuit -in Ultimately, the overarching concern should be "whether the adverse inference is trustworthy under all of the cireurastances and will advance the search for the truth." LiBuilti, 107 F.3d at 124 . -T 86 And when evidence of a nonparty witness's invocation is properly admitted, "the jury need only be instructed that they are permitted, but not required, to draw an inference adverse to a party from a witness's invocation of the privilege against selfin-crimination, and that they should not draw such an | 2 | 2015–2015 |
University of Denver v. Whitlock
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 57 . ¶ 54 Accepting as true the neighbors’ allegations, viewing them in the light most favorable to the neighbors, and drawing all inferences in the neighbors’ favor, we conclude that the neighbors have plausibly alleged that (1) the Hazlets and the neighbors were adjoining property owners; (2) the Hazlets owned and operated a 26 shooting range on their land for an extended period of time; (3) the portion of the Hazlets’ property that had been used as a shooting range was in operation on the date of the fire; (4) on the date of the fire, the Hazlets allowed and authorized several indivi | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re L.L
green
1 sentence2025Id. ¶ 30 We review de novo a trial court’s interpretation and application of a rule of civil procedure. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Zadran
green
1 sentence2022People v. Zadran, 2013 CO 69M, ¶ 11 . 6 ¶ 12 We disagree with Sellers that his waiver was invalid because he was encouraged to speak before being read his Miranda rights. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Cowart
green
1 sentence2022But, for me, this case is closer to the not-in- custody end of the spectrum than the in-custody end. ¶ 81 After considering the nonexclusive factors, looking objectively at the totality of the circumstances, see Cowart, 244 P.3d at 1203 , and recognizing that none of the nonexclusive factors alone is determinative, see Barraza, ¶ 17, I conclude that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would not have believed that he or she was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest, see Polander, 41 P.3d at 705 . ¶ 82 When looking at the factors indicating that defendant was not | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Polander
green
1 sentence2022But, for me, this case is closer to the not-in- custody end of the spectrum than the in-custody end. ¶ 81 After considering the nonexclusive factors, looking objectively at the totality of the circumstances, see Cowart, 244 P.3d at 1203 , and recognizing that none of the nonexclusive factors alone is determinative, see Barraza, ¶ 17, I conclude that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would not have believed that he or she was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest, see Polander, 41 P.3d at 705 . ¶ 82 When looking at the factors indicating that defendant was not | 1 | 2022–2022 |
C. Roger Youmans, Jr., M.D., and Leonard B. Tatar, Trustee, Plaintiffs v. Nick Simon and Bidco, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020See Arcturus, 928 F.3d at 419 ; Koch, 928 F.2d at 1479 ; Deutsch Energy Co., 813 F.2d at 1570 ; Youmans, 791 F.2d at 347 . (2) What kind of prior business experience do the partners have, not just as investors but as businesspeople (such as by holding executive positions in organizations)? | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Deutsch Energy Co. v. Sherman Mazur Richard Wall Jerome Weiner New Century Energy Corp. New Century Oil & Gas Supply Corp. Jack Ralston
green
1 sentence2020See Arcturus, 928 F.3d at 419 ; Koch, 928 F.2d at 1479 ; Deutsch Energy Co., 813 F.2d at 1570 ; Youmans, 791 F.2d at 347 . (2) What kind of prior business experience do the partners have, not just as investors but as businesspeople (such as by holding executive positions in organizations)? | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Koch v. Hankins
green
1 sentence2020See Arcturus, 928 F.3d at 419 ; Koch, 928 F.2d at 1479 ; Deutsch Energy Co., 813 F.2d at 1570 ; Youmans, 791 F.2d at 347 . (2) What kind of prior business experience do the partners have, not just as investors but as businesspeople (such as by holding executive positions in organizations)? | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Lentz v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance
green
1 sentence2015Ultimately, the overarching concern should be âwhether the adverse inference is trustworthy under all of the circumstances and will advance the search for the truth.â LiButti , 107 F.3d at 124 . ¶36       And when evidence of a nonparty witnessâs invocation is properly admitted, âthe jury need only be instructed that they are permitted, but not required, to draw an inference adverse to a party from a witnessâs invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination, and that they should not draw such an inference if they find that the witness invoked the privilege for reasons | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.