bench bar (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

bench bar in Colorado

7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2005 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Apprendigreen
nj · 1999 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005The New Jersey Supreme Court found aggravated sentencing under the hate crime law valid, holding that "the Legislature simply took one factor that has always been considered by sentencing courts to bear on punishment and dictated the weight to be given that factor." State v. Apprendi, 159 N.J. 7 , 731 A.2d 485, 494-95 (1999).

2005The New Jersey Supreme Court found aggravated sentencing under the hate crime law valid, holding that "the Legislature simply took one factor that has always been considered by sentencing courts to bear on punishment and dictated the weight to be given that factor." State v. Apprendi, 159 N.J. 7 , 731 A.2d 485, 494-95 (1999).

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Blakely v. Washington green
scotus · 2004
2 sentences

2005Id.

2005Id.

22005–2005
Daniels v. Stock neutral
coloctapp · 1912
2 sentences

1915Ap., 651, 126 Pac., 281 , it is probably the impression of the bench and bar of this state generally that, under the decisions of our Supreme Court, a defendant may plead inconsistent defenses; but whether this be so or not we need not now pause to consider, since the defense of suicide and the defense.of failure to give notice, both of which were set up by the defendant in its answer in this case, are not inconsistent defenses in any sense of the word.

1915Ap., 651, 126 Pac., 281 , it is probably the impression of the bench and bar of this state generally that, under the decisions of our Supreme Court, a defendant may plead inconsistent defenses; but whether this be so or not we need not now pause to consider, since the defense of suicide and the defense.of failure to give notice, both of which were set up by the defendant in its answer in this case, are not inconsistent defenses in any sense of the word.

21915–1915
Botkin v. Pyle green
colo · 1932
2 sentences

1977This case, therefore, poses a recurrent problem for the bench and the bar: that of dealing with the occasionally imponderable distinction between resulting and constructive trusts. *1217 In general terms, a resulting trust has been defined as one which is devoid of fraud or constructive fraud and "`which arises where the legal estate in property is disposed of, conveyed, or transferred, but the intent appears, or is inferred [from all the surrounding circumstances] that the beneficial interest is not to go or to be enjoyed with the legal title.'" Botkin v. Pyle, 91 Colo. 221 , 14 P.2d 187 (193

1977This case, therefore, poses a recurrent problem for the bench and the bar: that of dealing with the occasionally imponderable distinction between resulting and constructive trusts. *1217 In general terms, a resulting trust has been defined as one which is devoid of fraud or constructive fraud and "`which arises where the legal estate in property is disposed of, conveyed, or transferred, but the intent appears, or is inferred [from all the surrounding circumstances] that the beneficial interest is not to go or to be enjoyed with the legal title.'" Botkin v. Pyle, 91 Colo. 221 , 14 P.2d 187 (193

11977–1977
Oates v. People neutral
colo · 1957
2 sentences

1963Oates v. People, 136 Colo. 208 , 315 P. (2d) 196 .

1963Oates v. People, 136 Colo. 208 , 315 P. (2d) 196 .

11963–1963
Vetting v. Kefover neutral
colo · 1944
2 sentences

1946We have seen in Vetting, Administrator v. Kefover, 112 Colo. 53 , 145 P. (2d) 879 , how the minds of ancient peoples dwelt considerably on funeral arrangements and expenses.

1946We have seen in Vetting, Administrator v. Kefover, 112 Colo. 53 , 145 P. (2d) 879 , how the minds of ancient peoples dwelt considerably on funeral arrangements and expenses.

11946–1946

Where else courts name it

TX 232 (1876–2026) MI 145 (1920–2024) CA 104 (1866–2026) MS 99 (1954–2025) GA 93 (1905–2025) PA 91 (1830–2026) FL 83 (1912–2019) TN 73 (1903–2026) AL 65 (1868–2026) IL 56 (1879–2025) SC 52 (1914–2026) IA 41 (1915–2026) ID 40 (1979–2022) KS 40 (1871–2024) IN 39 (1872–2020) WI 38 (1881–2026) KY 38 (1876–2026) OK 37 (1897–2025) OR 34 (1955–2025) OH 34 (1907–2026) AR 29 (1929–2023) NJ 29 (1954–2021) WV 28 (1960–2022) MD 26 (1895–2019) NY 25 (1888–2022) LA 24 (1946–2024) MO 24 (1890–2018) SD 21 (1910–2022) NC 19 (1898–2020) WA 19 (1962–2025) UT 18 (1930–2020) MT 17 (1920–2022) CT 15 (1939–2026) NV 15 (1943–2021) VA 14 (1907–2026) MN 13 (1890–2010) AZ 13 (1935–2020) WY 12 (1975–2021) DC 9 (1972–2011) AK 8 (1964–2015) NE 8 (1898–2025) ME 7 (1972–2024) CO 7 (1915–2005) NM 7 (1937–2011) RI 7 (1986–2016) ND 5 (1911–1998) VT 3 (1875–1996) PR 3 (1955–1963) MA 3 (1823–1991) NH 2 (1985–1998) DE 2 (1936–1997) HI 2 (1902–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check