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 1983–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Marriage of Aldrichgreen2 sentences2025Cf. In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370, 1380 (Colo. 1997) (holding that party who fails to make a timely request for a hearing on reasonableness of attorney fees and costs waives such a hearing). 18 ¶ 43 But even if plaintiffs preserved their challenge through their initial request for attorney fees and costs or their post-trial motion, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. 2003See In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo.1997)(party who fails to make a timely request for hearing concerning award of attorney fees waives the right to a hearing); Webster v. Boone, supra (same). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Thatchergreen2 sentences1983See People v. Thatcher, 638 P.2d 760 (Colo.1981) (the court recognized that a timely request by defense counsel may be relevant to the question of whether the prosecution suppressed the evidence). 10 The only reason assigned by the police laboratory supervisor for his refusal to conduct the test was his opinion that the test was inconclusive. 1983See People v. Thatcher, 638 P.2d 760 (Colo.1981) (the court recognized that a timely request by defense counsel may be relevant to the question of whether the prosecution suppressed the evidence). [10] The only reason assigned by the police laboratory supervisor for his refusal to conduct the test was his opinion that the test was inconclusive. | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Ensmingergreen1 sentence2013In re Marriage of Ensminger, 209 P.3d 1163, 1167 (Colo.App.2008) (failure to make a timely request for a hearing waives the right to a hearing). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Webster v. Boone
green
1 sentence2003See In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo.1997)(party who fails to make a timely request for hearing concerning award of attorney fees waives the right to a hearing); Webster v. Boone, supra (same). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pedlow v. Stamp
green
1 sentence2001Relying on In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo.1997), and Pedlow v. Stamp, 776 P.2d 382 (Colo.1989), builders argue that a party that makes a timely request for a hearing is entitled to a hearing. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences1990State v. Harris, 152 Ariz. 150 , 730 P.2d 859 (App.1986). 1990State v. Harris, 152 Ariz. 150 , 730 P.2d 859 (App.1986). | 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.