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 1884–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keller v. A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.green1 sentence2017Smith Harvestore Prods., Inc., 819 P.2d 69, 75 (Colo. 1991) (Rovira, C.J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Hudspeth v. Board of County Com'rs of Routtgreen1 sentence1995See Hudspeth v. Board of County Commissioners, 667 P.2d 775 (Colo.App.1983) (lay agency’s findings may be both explicit and implicit). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Harsco Corp.green2 sentences1992Schmutz, 800 P.2d at 1316 ; Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 723 P.2d 1322, 1324-25 (Colo. 1986) (noting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. h provides for the recognition of such a defense); Jackson v. Harsco Corp., 673 P.2d 363, 367 (Colo.1983). 1992Schmutz, 800 P.2d at 1316 ; Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 723 P.2d 1322, 1324-25 (Colo. 1986) (noting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. h provides for the recognition of such a defense); Jackson v. Harsco Corp., 673 P.2d 363, 367 (Colo.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Schmutz v. Bollesgreen2 sentences1992Schmutz, 800 P.2d at 1316 ; Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 723 P.2d 1322, 1324-25 (Colo. 1986) (noting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. h provides for the recognition of such a defense); Jackson v. Harsco Corp., 673 P.2d 363, 367 (Colo.1983). 1992Schmutz, 800 P.2d at 1316 ; Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 723 P.2d 1322, 1324-25 (Colo. 1986) (noting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. h provides for the recognition of such a defense); Jackson v. Harsco Corp., 673 P.2d 363, 367 (Colo.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc.green2 sentences1992Schmutz, 800 P.2d at 1316 ; Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 723 P.2d 1322, 1324-25 (Colo. 1986) (noting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. h provides for the recognition of such a defense); Jackson v. Harsco Corp., 673 P.2d 363, 367 (Colo.1983). 1992Schmutz, 800 P.2d at 1316 ; Uptain v. Huntington Lab, Inc., 723 P.2d 1322, 1324-25 (Colo. 1986) (noting that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A cmt. h provides for the recognition of such a defense); Jackson v. Harsco Corp., 673 P.2d 363, 367 (Colo.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Benny Earl Farrell, an Oklahoma Citizen v. Klein Tools, Inc., a Delaware Corporationgreen2 sentences1992"A defendant who could reasonably foresee the possibility of misuse is not entitled to an instruction on the misuse defense." Schmutz, 800 P.2d at 1316 ( citing Farrell v. Klein Tools, Inc., 866 F.2d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir.1989)). 1992“A defendant who could reasonably foresee the possibility of misuse is not entitled to an instruction on the misuse defense.” Schmutz, 800 P.2d at 1316 (citing Farrell v. Klein Tools, Inc., 866 F.2d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir.1989)). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 291748green1 sentence1984Here, as in Pattie Lea, we are interpreting the meaning of client's consent under the statute when the client is a corporation and the privilege is invoked against the corporation's shareholders. [6] The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Garner v. Wolfinbarger suggested some factors bearing on whether good cause has been shown why the privilege should not be invoked: There are many indicia that may contribute to a decision of presence or absence of good cause, among them the number of shareholders and the percentage of stock they represent; the bona fides of the shareholders; the nature of the | 1 | 1 |
Neusteter v. DIST. CT. IN & FOR CITY, ETC.green2 sentences1984Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, § 2285 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (emphases deleted); see, e.g., Neusteter v. District Court, 675 P.2d 1 (Colo.1984); Lindsey v. People, 66 Colo. 343 , 181 P. 531 (1919); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187 (2d Cir.1983); Tabor v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 571 (Ky.1982). 1984Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, § 2285 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (emphases deleted); see, e.g., Neusteter v. District Court, 675 P.2d 1 (Colo.1984); Lindsey v. People, 66 Colo. 343 , 181 P. 531 (1919); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187 (2d Cir. 1983); Tabor v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 571 (Ky.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rose v. Clark
red
2 sentences1998Rather, it is a recognition that the principle underlying the rule that the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt is “to ensure that only the guilty are criminally punished.” Rose v. Clark, supra, 478 U.S. at 580 , 106 S.Ct. at 3107 , 92 L.Ed.2d at 472 . 1998Rather, it is a recognition that the principle underlying the rule that the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt is “to ensure that only the guilty are criminally punished.” Rose v. Clark, supra, 478 U.S. at 580 , 106 S.Ct. at 3107 , 92 L.Ed.2d at 472 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Lindsey v. People
green
2 sentences1984Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, § 2285 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (emphases deleted); see, e.g., Neusteter v. District Court, 675 P.2d 1 (Colo.1984); Lindsey v. People, 66 Colo. 343 , 181 P. 531 (1919); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187 (2d Cir.1983); Tabor v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 571 (Ky.1982). 1984Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, § 2285 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (emphases deleted); see, e.g., Neusteter v. District Court, 675 P.2d 1 (Colo.1984); Lindsey v. People, 66 Colo. 343 , 181 P. 531 (1919); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187 (2d Cir.1983); Tabor v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 571 (Ky.1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
cluster 389579
green
1 sentence1984Here, as in Pattie Lea, we are interpreting the meaning of client's consent under the statute when the client is a corporation and the privilege is invoked against the corporation's shareholders. [6] The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Garner v. Wolfinbarger suggested some factors bearing on whether good cause has been shown why the privilege should not be invoked: There are many indicia that may contribute to a decision of presence or absence of good cause, among them the number of shareholders and the percentage of stock they represent; the bona fides of the shareholders; the nature of the | 1 | 1984–1984 |
In Re Dr. John Doe, M.D., a Witness Before the January 1982 Additional Grand Jury. Dr. John Doe, M.D. v. United States
green
2 sentences1984Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, § 2285 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (emphases deleted); see, e.g., Neusteter v. District Court, 675 P.2d 1 (Colo.1984); Lindsey v. People, 66 Colo. 343 , 181 P. 531 (1919); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187 (2d Cir.1983); Tabor v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 571 (Ky.1982). 1984Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, § 2285 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (emphases deleted); see, e.g., Neusteter v. District Court, 675 P.2d 1 (Colo.1984); Lindsey v. People, 66 Colo. 343 , 181 P. 531 (1919); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187 (2d Cir. 1983); Tabor v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 571 (Ky.1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Tabor v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1984Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, § 2285 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (emphases deleted); see, e.g., Neusteter v. District Court, 675 P.2d 1 (Colo.1984); Lindsey v. People, 66 Colo. 343 , 181 P. 531 (1919); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187 (2d Cir.1983); Tabor v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 571 (Ky.1982). 1984Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, § 2285 (McNaughton rev. 1961) (emphases deleted); see, e.g., Neusteter v. District Court, 675 P.2d 1 (Colo.1984); Lindsey v. People, 66 Colo. 343 , 181 P. 531 (1919); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187 (2d Cir. 1983); Tabor v. Commonwealth, 625 S.W.2d 571 (Ky.1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Clark v. United States
green
2 sentences1975As stated by Justice Cardozo in Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 , 53 S.Ct. 465 , 77 L.Ed. 993 (1932), this demands our reconciliation: ‘ ‘The recognition of a privilege does not mean that it is without conditions or exceptions. 1975As stated by Justice Cardozo in Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 , 53 S.Ct. 465 , 77 L.Ed. 993 (1932), this demands our reconciliation: ‘ ‘The recognition of a privilege does not mean that it is without conditions or exceptions. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Salsbury v. Ellison
neutral
1 sentence1884In the principal opinion we declared that the surviving partner of an insolvent firm might, in the first instance, “make an equitable and just assignment of the partnership effects and credits, for the equal benefit of all the creditors.” 7 Colo. 167 . | 1 | 1884–1884 |
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.