Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2012 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Malley v. Briggsgreen2 sentences1998City of Lakewood v. Brace, supra; see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523, 531 (1987) (“The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”); Molley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271, 278 (1986) (the objective reasonableness standard “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”). 1998City of Lakewood v. Brace, supra; see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523, 531 (1987) (“The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”); Molley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271, 278 (1986) (the objective reasonableness standard “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”). | 3 | 4 |
Anderson v. Creightongreen2 sentences1998City of Lakewood v. Brace, supra; see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523, 531 (1987) (“The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”); Molley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271, 278 (1986) (the objective reasonableness standard “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”). 1998City of Lakewood v. Brace, supra; see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523, 531 (1987) (“The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”); Molley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271, 278 (1986) (the objective reasonableness standard “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Dumasgreen2 sentences2010We have observed that "the trial court's factual determinations will be upheld on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous." People v. Dumas, 955 P.2d 60, 62-63 (Colo.1998). 2000See, e.g., People v. Daverin, 967 P.2d 629, 632 (Colo.1998); People v. Dumas, 955 P.2d 60, 63 (Colo.1998); People v. Altman, 938 P.2d 142, 146 (Colo.1997); People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 78 (Colo.1995); People v. Weston, 869 P.2d 1293, 1298 (Colo.1994); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371, 1376 (Colo.1989). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Truppgreen1 sentence2012Rule 11(a) provides that a sanction is to be imposed "[ilf a pleading is signed in violation of this Rule." C.R.C.P. 11(a). ¶ 13 In In re Trupp, 92 P.3d 923, 930 (Colo.2004) (Trupp II), the supreme court observed that the "Rule 11 inquiry focuses on pre-filing, pre-pleading behavior of the attorney, in light of an objective reasonableness standard." The inquiry "is not as broad as the current, amended counterpart federal rule," Trupp I, 51 P.8d at 990, which specifically encompasses attorney action taken after the signing and filing of a pleading. | 1 | 1 |
Florida v. Jimenogreen2 sentences2010See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991) (defining the objective reasonableness standard); United States v. Rich, 992 F.2d 502, 504 (5th Cir.1993) (summarizing the difference between clear error and de novo review); People v. Olivas, 859 P.2d 211, 214 (Colo.1993) (mixing objective reasonableness review for seope of consent with a clear error review according to the totality of the cireumstances for facts). 2010See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991) (defining the objective reasonableness standard); United States v. Rich, 992 F.2d 502, 504 (5th Cir.1993) (summarizing the difference between clear error and de novo review); People v. Olivas, 859 P.2d 211, 214 (Colo.1993) (mixing objective reasonableness review for seope of consent with a clear error review according to the totality of the cireumstances for facts). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. William Robert Richgreen1 sentence2010See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991) (defining the objective reasonableness standard); United States v. Rich, 992 F.2d 502, 504 (5th Cir.1993) (summarizing the difference between clear error and de novo review); People v. Olivas, 859 P.2d 211, 214 (Colo.1993) (mixing objective reasonableness review for seope of consent with a clear error review according to the totality of the cireumstances for facts). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Olivasgreen1 sentence2010See Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991) (defining the objective reasonableness standard); United States v. Rich, 992 F.2d 502, 504 (5th Cir.1993) (summarizing the difference between clear error and de novo review); People v. Olivas, 859 P.2d 211, 214 (Colo.1993) (mixing objective reasonableness review for seope of consent with a clear error review according to the totality of the cireumstances for facts). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Truppgreen1 sentence2004Trupp I, 51 P.3d 985, 991 (Colo.2002). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hausemangreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., People v. Daverin, 967 P.2d 629, 632 (Colo.1998); People v. Dumas, 955 P.2d 60, 63 (Colo.1998); People v. Altman, 938 P.2d 142, 146 (Colo.1997); People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 78 (Colo.1995); People v. Weston, 869 P.2d 1293, 1298 (Colo.1994); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371, 1376 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Westongreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., People v. Daverin, 967 P.2d 629, 632 (Colo.1998); People v. Dumas, 955 P.2d 60, 63 (Colo.1998); People v. Altman, 938 P.2d 142, 146 (Colo.1997); People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 78 (Colo.1995); People v. Weston, 869 P.2d 1293, 1298 (Colo.1994); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371, 1376 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Altmangreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., People v. Daverin, 967 P.2d 629, 632 (Colo.1998); People v. Dumas, 955 P.2d 60, 63 (Colo.1998); People v. Altman, 938 P.2d 142, 146 (Colo.1997); People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 78 (Colo.1995); People v. Weston, 869 P.2d 1293, 1298 (Colo.1994); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371, 1376 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Daveringreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., People v. Daverin, 967 P.2d 629, 632 (Colo.1998); People v. Dumas, 955 P.2d 60, 63 (Colo.1998); People v. Altman, 938 P.2d 142, 146 (Colo.1997); People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 78 (Colo.1995); People v. Weston, 869 P.2d 1293, 1298 (Colo.1994); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371, 1376 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ratcliffgreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., People v. Daverin, 967 P.2d 629, 632 (Colo.1998); People v. Dumas, 955 P.2d 60, 63 (Colo.1998); People v. Altman, 938 P.2d 142, 146 (Colo.1997); People v. Hauseman, 900 P.2d 74, 78 (Colo.1995); People v. Weston, 869 P.2d 1293, 1298 (Colo.1994); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371, 1376 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Lakewood v. Brace
green
2 sentences1998City of Lakewood v. Brace, supra; see also Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523, 531 (1987) (“The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”); Molley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271, 278 (1986) (the objective reasonableness standard “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”). 1996City of Lakewood v. Brace, supra; National Camera, Inc. v. Sanchez, 832 P.2d 960 (Colo.App.1991); see also Anderson v. Creighton, supra, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 531 (“The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271, 278 (1986) (the objective reasonableness standard “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”). | 3 | 1996–1998 |
National Camera, Inc. v. Sanchez
green
2 sentences1996City of Lakewood v. Brace, supra; National Camera, Inc. v. Sanchez, 832 P.2d 960 (Colo.App.1991); see also Anderson v. Creighton, supra, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 531 (“The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271, 278 (1986) (the objective reasonableness standard “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”). 1996City of Lakewood v. Brace, supra ; National Camera, Inc. v. Sanchez, 832 P.2d 960 (Colo.App.1991); see also Anderson v. Creighton, supra, 483 U.S. at 640 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 531 ("The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right."); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271, 278 (1986) (the objective reasonableness standard "provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law"). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Moody v. Ungerer
green
2 sentences1996What is “clearly established law” is a question of law, and a court engaging in review of a qualified immunity determination should therefore use “its full knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents.” See Moody v. Ungerer, 885 P.2d 200 (Colo.1994) (fn.2). 1996What is "clearly established law" is a question of law, and a court engaging in review of a qualified immunity determination should therefore use "its full knowledge of its own [and other relevant] precedents." See Moody v. Ungerer, 885 P.2d 200 (Colo.1994) (fn.2). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
green
2 sentences1990In Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), the United States Supreme Court re-confirmed that police officers are to be accorded qualified immunity from § 1983 damage suits brought by citizens and that the test to be applied is the objective reasonableness standard adopted in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). 1990In Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986), the United States Supreme Court re-confirmed that police officers are to be accorded qualified immunity from § 1983 damage suits brought by citizens and that the test to be applied is the objective reasonableness standard adopted in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.