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 1998–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
v. Bakergreen1 sentence2025People v. Baker, 2021 CO 29, ¶ 32 (citing Rector, 248 P.3d at 1203 ). 5 C. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rectorgreen2 sentences2025Doing so would usurp the function of the jury. ¶ 15 To determine whether expert testimony usurped the function of the jury, the court should consider the factors set forth in People v. Rector, 248 P.3d 1196, 1203 (Colo. 2011): whether (1) the testimony was clarified on cross-examination; (2) the expert’s testimony expressed an opinion of the applicable law or legal standards and thereby usurped the function of the court; (3) the jury was properly instructed on the law and that it could accept or reject the expert’s opinion; and (4) the expert opined that the defendant had committed the crime o 2025People v. Baker, 2021 CO 29, ¶ 32 (citing Rector, 248 P.3d at 1203 ). 5 C. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harlangreen2 sentences2024Harlan , 109 P.3d at 625 . ¶72 During the second step, the court should consider those factors articulated in our prior cases: (1) how the extraneous information related to critical issues in the case; (2) the degree of authority represented by the extraneous information; (3) how the information was acquired; (4) whether the information was shared with other jurors in the jury room; (5) whether the information was considered before the jury reached its verdict; and (6) whether there is a reasonable possibility that the information would influence a typical juror to the defendant's detriment. 2024Harlan , 109 P.3d at 625. ¶72 During the second step, the court should consider those factors articulated in our prior cases: (1) how the extraneous information related to critical issues in the case; (2) the degree of authority represented by the extraneous information; (3) how the information was acquired; (4) whether the information was shared with other jurors in the jury room; (5) whether the information was considered before the jury reached its verdict; and (6) whether there is a reasonable possibility that the information would influence a typical juror to the defendant's detriment. | 1 | 1 |
Rankin v. McPhersongreen1 sentence2019In this regard, the court should consider factors such as “whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 388 (1987) (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 570–73). 9 ¶25 For several reasons, we agree with the Commission that Pickering provides the appropriate framework for addressing the First Amendment issues | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C.
green
2 sentences2004Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., supra ; In re Parental Responsibilities of H.Z.G., supra . 2004Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., supra; In re Parental Responsibilities of H.Z.G., supra. C. | 3 | 2003–2004 |
In Re the Parental Responsibilities of H.Z.G.
green
2 sentences2004Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., supra ; In re Parental Responsibilities of H.Z.G., supra . 2004Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., supra; In re Parental Responsibilities of H.Z.G., supra. C. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Colorow Health Care, LLC v. Fischer
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 227 . ¶ 32 In applying the first Bickel factor, the Colorow court held that the facility’s noncompliance with the typeface requirement was “minimal.” Colorow, ¶ 40, 420 P.3d at 267 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bickel v. City of Boulder
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 227 . ¶ 32 In applying the first Bickel factor, the Colorow court held that the facility’s noncompliance with the typeface requirement was “minimal.” Colorow, ¶ 40, 420 P.3d at 267 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.
green
2 sentences2019In this regard, the court should consider factors such as “whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 388 (1987) (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 570–73). 9 ¶25 For several reasons, we agree with the Commission that Pickering provides the appropriate framework for addressing the First Amendment issues 2019In this regard, the court should consider factors such as “whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 388 (1987) (citing Pickering, 391 U.S. at 570–73). 9 ¶25 For several reasons, we agree with the Commission that Pickering provides the appropriate framework for addressing the First Amendment issues | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. John W. Downing
green
1 sentence1998United States v. Downing, supra. Here, the trial court addressed the admissibility of the testimony of plaintiffs expert pursuant to CRE 702 and Campbell v. People, supra. We agree that such was the proper standard. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.