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.
7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. First Interstate Bank of Denvergreen1 sentence1986See In re Application of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., 703 P.2d 1314 (Colo.App.1985); Alessi v. Hogue, 689 P.2d 649 (Colo.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kinsel v. Wieland
neutral
2 sentences1913The courts of the state have repeatedly ruled that the burden of showing error is upon the appellant or plaintiff in error, and in order to secure a reversal of the judgment of which he complains prejudicial error must affirmatively appear in the record. -Kins el v. Wieland, 38 Colo., 296 -9, 88 Pac., 153 ; Stewart v. Schiffer, 43 Colo., 515 -6, 96 Pac., 169 ; Stubbs v. Montezuma Co., 45 Colo., 219 -221, 100 Pac., 433 . 1913The courts of the state have repeatedly ruled that the burden of showing error is upon the appellant or plaintiff in error, and in order to secure a reversal of the judgment of which he complains prejudicial error must affirmatively appear in the record. -Kins el v. Wieland, 38 Colo., 296 -9, 88 Pac., 153 ; Stewart v. Schiffer, 43 Colo., 515 -6, 96 Pac., 169 ; Stubbs v. Montezuma Co., 45 Colo., 219 -221, 100 Pac., 433 . | 2 | 1913–1913 |
Stewart v. Schiffer
neutral
2 sentences1913The courts of the state have repeatedly ruled that the burden of showing error is upon the appellant or plaintiff in error, and in order to secure a reversal of the judgment of which he complains prejudicial error must affirmatively appear in the record. -Kins el v. Wieland, 38 Colo., 296 -9, 88 Pac., 153 ; Stewart v. Schiffer, 43 Colo., 515 -6, 96 Pac., 169 ; Stubbs v. Montezuma Co., 45 Colo., 219 -221, 100 Pac., 433 . 1913The courts of the state have repeatedly ruled that the burden of showing error is upon the appellant or plaintiff in error, and in order to secure a reversal of the judgment of which he complains prejudicial error must affirmatively appear in the record. -Kins el v. Wieland, 38 Colo., 296 -9, 88 Pac., 153 ; Stewart v. Schiffer, 43 Colo., 515 -6, 96 Pac., 169 ; Stubbs v. Montezuma Co., 45 Colo., 219 -221, 100 Pac., 433 . | 2 | 1913–1913 |
Stubbs v. Montezuma Lumber Co.
neutral
2 sentences1913The courts of the state have repeatedly ruled that the burden of showing error is upon the appellant or plaintiff in error, and in order to secure a reversal of the judgment of which he complains prejudicial error must affirmatively appear in the record. -Kins el v. Wieland, 38 Colo., 296 -9, 88 Pac., 153 ; Stewart v. Schiffer, 43 Colo., 515 -6, 96 Pac., 169 ; Stubbs v. Montezuma Co., 45 Colo., 219 -221, 100 Pac., 433 . 1913The courts of the state have repeatedly ruled that the burden of showing error is upon the appellant or plaintiff in error, and in order to secure a reversal of the judgment of which he complains prejudicial error must affirmatively appear in the record. -Kins el v. Wieland, 38 Colo., 296 -9, 88 Pac., 153 ; Stewart v. Schiffer, 43 Colo., 515 -6, 96 Pac., 169 ; Stubbs v. Montezuma Co., 45 Colo., 219 -221, 100 Pac., 433 . | 2 | 1913–1913 |
Alcon v. Spicer
green
1 sentence2018Id. ¶ 20 Here, Defendants assert that the trial court's statement that the non-party medical providers had "only treat[ed] [Bailey] for complaints and conditions arising out of the original alleged acts of negligence" amounted to a finding of implied waiver. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Alessi v. Hogue
green
1 sentence1986See In re Application of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., 703 P.2d 1314 (Colo.App.1985); Alessi v. Hogue, 689 P.2d 649 (Colo.App.1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Kallnbach v. People
green
2 sentences1965Kallnbach v. People, 125 Colo. 144 , 242 P.2d 222 ; St. 1965Kallnbach v. People, 125 Colo. 144 , 242 P.2d 222 ; St. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Colburn v. Ernst
neutral
2 sentences1937Colburn v. Ernst, 75 Colo. 120 , 223 Pac. 759 . *45 So far as appears from the record the plaintiff in error made no attempt to show that any waiver in fact existed. 1937Colburn v. Ernst, 75 Colo. 120 , 223 Pac. 759 . *45 So far as appears from the record the plaintiff in error made no attempt to show that any waiver in fact existed. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Denver Dry Goods Co. v. Jester
green
1 sentence1923Denver Dry Goods Co. v. Jester, 60 Colo. 290 , 152 Pac. 903 , L. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.