7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Les v. Meredithgreen2 sentences2000See Les, 193 Colo. at 5 , 561 P.2d at 1258 . . 2000See Les, 193 Colo. at 5 , 561 P.2d at 1258 . . | 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. Lacallo
green
2 sentences2015Relying on People v. Lacallo, 2014 COA 78, 114-23 , 338 P.3d 442 , the People argue that because Serra did not move for a judgment of acquittal on the charges of violation of bail bond conditions and violation of a protection order (or otherwise raise the issue of sufficiency in the trial court), we should review only for plain error. | We disagree with Lacallo's holding that unpre-served sufficiency arguments may be reviewed only for plain error and instead follow other divisions of this court that have concluded that "sufficiency of the evidence claims are not governed by plain error review. 2015Relying on People v. Lacallo, 2014 COA 78, 114-23 , 338 P.3d 442 , the People argue that because Serra did not move for a judgment of acquittal on the charges of violation of bail bond conditions and violation of a protection order (or otherwise raise the issue of sufficiency in the trial court), we should review only for plain error. | We disagree with Lacallo's holding that unpre-served sufficiency arguments may be reviewed only for plain error and instead follow other divisions of this court that have concluded that "sufficiency of the evidence claims are not governed by plain error review. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Young
green
2 sentences1997People v. Young, supra. After a second original proceeding in the supreme court, which we consider in Part II in addressing the defendant’s claim of a denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the district court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges for violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial. 1997The court reasoned that the supreme court’s ruling in People v. Young, supra, was a “redenomination” of the prosecution’s appeal such that the statutory speedy trial period was tolled because jurisdiction was ultimately accepted in the supreme court. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Guenther
green
1 sentence1987Id. at 982 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
United States v. Mauro
green
2 sentences1986That decision, however, was based upon article V(c) of the IAD, see id. at 348 , 348 n. 13, 353, 98 S.Ct. at 1841 , 1841 n. 13, 1843, which mandates dismissal of the charges for violation of the 120-day requirement, as does section 16-14-104 of the Uniform Act in the event of a similar violation under that act. 1986That decision, however, was based upon article V(c) of the IAD, see id. at 348 , 348 n. 13, 353, 98 S.Ct. at 1841 , 1841 n. 13, 1843, which mandates dismissal of the charges for violation of the 120-day requirement, as does section 16-14-104 of the Uniform Act in the event of a similar violation under that act. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Holloway
green
1 sentence1984People v. Holloway, supra. II. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.