8 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duran v. Lammgreen2 sentences2016Servs. , 738 P.2d 37, 42 (Colo. App. 1987) ("No reduction is required unless the unsuccessful claim represents a ‘substantial separate issue.’" (quoting Duran v. Lamm , 644 P.2d 66, 68 (Colo. App. 1981))). 2016Servs., 738 P.2d 37 , 42 (Colo.App.1987) ("No reduction is required unless the unsuccessful claim represents a 'substantial separate issue.' " (quoting Duran v. Lamm, 644 P.2d 66 , 68 (Colo.App.1981) )). | 2 | 4 |
Oten v. Colorado Board of Social Servicesgreen2 sentences2016Servs. , 738 P.2d 37, 42 (Colo. App. 1987) ("No reduction is required unless the unsuccessful claim represents a ‘substantial separate issue.’" (quoting Duran v. Lamm , 644 P.2d 66, 68 (Colo. App. 1981))). 2016Servs., 738 P.2d 37 , 42 (Colo.App.1987) ("No reduction is required unless the unsuccessful claim represents a 'substantial separate issue.' " (quoting Duran v. Lamm, 644 P.2d 66 , 68 (Colo.App.1981) )). | 2 | 4 |
Morrison v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2026To the contrary, the supreme court has held that its “prior decisions do not require a defendant to cure a trial judge’s error on a challenge for cause by using a peremptory strike against the objectionable juror in order to preserve a claim that his right to a fair trial was violated by the presence of a biased juror.” Morrison v. People, 19 P.3d 668, 670 (Colo. 2000) (emphasis added); People v. Garcia, 2018 COA 180 , ¶¶ 10-11 (“Th[e] holding [in Morrison] indicates that there is no inherent inconsistency in allowing counsel 14 to challenge a juror for cause while also permitting her to use p | 1 | 1 |
Gershin v. Demminggreen1 sentence2006See § 13-17-103(1)(g), C.R.S.2005 (in determining the amount of an attorney fee award, the court should consider “[t]he extent to which the party prevailed with respect to the amount of *391 and number of claims in controversy”); Colo. RPC 1.5(a)(4) (factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include “the amount involved and the results obtained”); see also Gershin v. Demming, 685 N.E.2d 1125, 1131 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (“Landlord is only entitled to recover the amount of appellate attorney fees that can be attributed to that portion of the appeal upon which she has prevai | 1 | 1 |
Goldman v. Alkekgreen1 sentence2006See § 13-17-103(1)(g), C.R.S.2005 (in determining the amount of an attorney fee award, the court should consider “[t]he extent to which the party prevailed with respect to the amount of *391 and number of claims in controversy”); Colo. RPC 1.5(a)(4) (factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include “the amount involved and the results obtained”); see also Gershin v. Demming, 685 N.E.2d 1125, 1131 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (“Landlord is only entitled to recover the amount of appellate attorney fees that can be attributed to that portion of the appeal upon which she has prevai | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Zurich American Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2014Id. {18 In Graham v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 2012 COA 188, ¶¶27-28 , 296 P.3d 347 , a division of this court held in another CWCA case that a prevailing employee was eligible to receive appellate attorney fees. 2014Id. {18 In Graham v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 2012 COA 188, ¶¶27-28 , 296 P.3d 347 , a division of this court held in another CWCA case that a prevailing employee was eligible to receive appellate attorney fees. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Carruthers v. Carrier Access Corp.
green
1 sentence2014Id. {18 In Graham v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 2012 COA 188, ¶¶27-28 , 296 P.3d 347 , a division of this court held in another CWCA case that a prevailing employee was eligible to receive appellate attorney fees. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.