7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1878–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Maringreen1 sentence2009See People v. Marin, 686 P.2d 1351, 1357 (Colo.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hardingreen1 sentence1980See People v. Hardin, Colo., 607 P.2d 1291 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Agado
green
1 sentence2000People v. Agado, 964 P.2d 565 (Colo.App.1998). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Howell v. Woodlin School District R-104
green
1 sentence1984The court in Howell also stated in dictum that reinstatement “is appropriate where the dismissal or cancellation is wrongful due to a failure to provide procedural safeguards.” Id. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Holmes
green
2 sentences1983Cf. People v. Gray, supra; People v. Holmes, 54 Ill.App.3d 843 , 11 Ill.Dec. 498 , 368 N.E.2d 1106 (1977). 1983Cf. People v. Gray, supra; People v. Holmes, 54 Ill.App.3d 843 , 11 Ill.Dec. 498 , 368 N.E.2d 1106 (1977). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Mason
green
2 sentences1983Here, the prosecutrix's remarks, neither individually nor collectively, indicated a “misplaced zeal to win the case,” People v. Mason, 643 P.2d 745 (Colo.1982), nor was defendant’s right to a fair trial “endangered” in any way by any of the prosecutrix’s statements in closing or rebuttal, see People v. Mason, supra. Where, as here, we find not only the absence of reversible error, but also the absence of any error whatsoever in each of the contested prosecutorial statements, there can be no cumulative error. 1983Here, the prosecutrix's remarks, neither individually nor collectively, indicated a “misplaced zeal to win the case,” People v. Mason, 643 P.2d 745 (Colo.1982), nor was defendant’s right to a fair trial “endangered” in any way by any of the prosecutrix’s statements in closing or rebuttal, see People v. Mason, supra. Where, as here, we find not only the absence of reversible error, but also the absence of any error whatsoever in each of the contested prosecutorial statements, there can be no cumulative error. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Bronson v. Rodes
green
2 sentences1878Bronson v. Rhodes, 7 Wall. 229 ; Butler v. Horwitz, id. 258 ; Downing v. Sears, 11 id. 379 ; Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 id. 687. 1878Bronson v. Rhodes, 7 Wall. 229 ; Butler v. Horwitz, id. 258 ; Downing v. Sears, 11 id. 379 ; Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 id. 687. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
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.