8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jdc v. Dist. Court Eigtnth. Jud. Dis.green2 sentences2011In addition, the court observed that, because former seetion 19-2-102(1)(b) gave the juvenile court exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings concerning any juvenile to whom the transfer statute applied, "once a district attorney files a case in juvenile court and requests a transfer hearing, the juvenile court obtains exclusive original jurisdiction over the juvenile." Id. at 687 (emphasis added). 2006Court, 910 P.2d 684, 686 (Colo.1996)("According to the plain language of [the former version of the transfer statute], once a juvenile petition is filed in juvenile court, the only proper method for transferring the case to the district court is a transfer hearing before the juvenile court."). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2016See People v. Campbell, 174 P.3d 860, 867 (Colo. App. 2007) (“[I]t is. the appellant’s duty to provide those portions of the record necessary to substantiate the claims of error on appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Flanigangreen2 sentences1991In the first step, the juvenile court must determine “[wjhether there is probable cause to believe that the juvenile has committed a delinquent act for which waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction over the juvenile and transfer to the district court may be sought.” § 19-2-806(2)(a), 8B C.R.S. (1990 Supp.). 11 In the second step, the juvenile court must determine whether it would be contrary to the best interests of the juvenile or of the public to retain juvenile court jurisdiction. § 19-2-806(1)(a), (2)(b), & (3)(b), 8B C.R.S. (1990 Supp.). 12 The probable-cause phase of a transfer hearing is 1991In the first step, the juvenile court must determine “[wjhether there is probable cause to believe that the juvenile has committed a delinquent act for which waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction over the juvenile and transfer to the district court may be sought.” § 19-2-806(2)(a), 8B C.R.S. (1990 Supp.). 11 In the second step, the juvenile court must determine whether it would be contrary to the best interests of the juvenile or of the public to retain juvenile court jurisdiction. § 19-2-806(1)(a), (2)(b), & (3)(b), 8B C.R.S. (1990 Supp.). 12 The probable-cause phase of a transfer hearing is | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Appeal in Pima County, Juv. Actiongreen2 sentences1994See R.H. v. State, supra ; but cf. In re Appeal in Pima County, 139 Ariz. 446 , 679 P.2d 92 (App.1984). 1994See R.H. v. State, supra ; but cf. In re Appeal in Pima County, 139 Ariz. 446 , 679 P.2d 92 (App.1984). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kent v. United States
green
2 sentences1994The United States Supreme Court has observed that the result of the transfer hearing is of "tremendous consequences." Kent v. United States, supra, 383 U.S. at 554 , 86 S.Ct. at 1053 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 93 . 1994The United States Supreme Court has observed that the result of the transfer hearing is of "tremendous consequences." Kent v. United States, supra, 383 U.S. at 554 , 86 S.Ct. at 1053 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 93 . | 3 | 1994–2006 |
People v. DISTRICT COURT, JUV. DIV., FIFTH JUD. DIST.
green
2 sentences1996The juvenile court relied on People v. District Court, 191 Colo. 28 , 549 P.2d 1317 (1976), in deciding that it lacked the discretion to prevent the district attorney from directly filing this case in district court. 1996The juvenile court relied on People v. District Court, 191 Colo. 28 , 549 P.2d 1317 (1976), in deciding that it lacked the discretion to prevent the district attorney from directly filing this case in district court. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
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.