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 1981–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Redinger v. Clapper's Tree Service Inc.green2 sentences2015Id. at 801 ("Proximity may inform causation, but is no substitute therefor."). 130 In Redinger v. Clapper's Tree Service Inc., 419 Pa.Super. 487 , 615 A.2d 743, 748 (1992), the court also interpreted a comparable immunity waiver. 2015Id. at 801 ("Proximity may inform causation, but is no substitute therefor."). 130 In Redinger v. Clapper's Tree Service Inc., 419 Pa.Super. 487 , 615 A.2d 743, 748 (1992), the court also interpreted a comparable immunity waiver. | 1 | 1 |
Meddock v. County of Yolo CA3green1 sentence2015Id. at 801 ("Proximity may inform causation, but is no substitute therefor."). 130 In Redinger v. Clapper's Tree Service Inc., 419 Pa.Super. 487 , 615 A.2d 743, 748 (1992), the court also interpreted a comparable immunity waiver. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael J. Corbittgreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., United States v. Corbitt, 13 F.3d 207, 211-12 (7th Cir.1993); see also State v. Wika, 574 N.W.2d 831, 832-33 (N.D.1998) (referring to federal rule when interpreting a comparable state rule). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wikagreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., United States v. Corbitt, 13 F.3d 207, 211-12 (7th Cir.1993); see also State v. Wika, 574 N.W.2d 831, 832-33 (N.D.1998) (referring to federal rule when interpreting a comparable state rule). | 1 | 1 |
Griffing v. Smithgreen1 sentence2006See Griffing v. Smith, 26 Colo.App. 220, 223-24 , 142 P. 202 , 204 (1914) (the comparable rule, former Code of Civil Procedure § 185, stated that “the clerk shall” enter judgment, and the court concluded that the provision “was never intended to deprive the court of its power to render a judgment, but only to give the clerk authority to enter it”). | 1 | 1 |
Robertson v. Wegmanngreen2 sentences1981See Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 , 98 S.Ct. 1991 , 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693 , 93 S.Ct. 1785 , 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973). [4] *461 We find that the trial court erred in ruling that a state wrongful death action was the plaintiffs' sole method of recovery in Colorado. [5] In order to guide the trial court in its conduct of proceedings on remand, we go on to determine whether any of the plaintiffs in this case are entitled to assert a claim for relief under § 1983 that allows a recovery of damages different from the remedies and limitations that apply to pl 1981See Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 , 98 S.Ct. 1991 , 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693 , 93 S.Ct. 1785 , 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973). [4] *461 We find that the trial court erred in ruling that a state wrongful death action was the plaintiffs' sole method of recovery in Colorado. [5] In order to guide the trial court in its conduct of proceedings on remand, we go on to determine whether any of the plaintiffs in this case are entitled to assert a claim for relief under § 1983 that allows a recovery of damages different from the remedies and limitations that apply to pl | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
103 Investors I, LP v. Square D Company
green
1 sentence2012Id. 127 The trial court made a comparable error in this case. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bredice v. Doctors Hospital, Inc.
green
1 sentence1993The federal rules governing the admission of evidence, Fed.R.Evid. 501, provide that any testimonial privilege “shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in light of reason and experience.” The comparable state rule, CRE 501, contains a somewhat similar provision. *898 Pursuant to the authority of Fed.R.Evid. 501, some federal courts, commencing with Bredice v. Doctor’s Hospital, Inc., 50 F.R.D. 249 (D.D.C.1970), aff'd, 479 F.2d 920 (D.C.Cir.1973), have appeared to recognize a privilege against the disclosure of informat | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Indiana & Michigan Electric Company v. Federal Power Commission
green
1 sentence1993The federal rules governing the admission of evidence, Fed.R.Evid. 501, provide that any testimonial privilege “shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in light of reason and experience.” The comparable state rule, CRE 501, contains a somewhat similar provision. *898 Pursuant to the authority of Fed.R.Evid. 501, some federal courts, commencing with Bredice v. Doctor’s Hospital, Inc., 50 F.R.D. 249 (D.D.C.1970), aff'd, 479 F.2d 920 (D.C.Cir.1973), have appeared to recognize a privilege against the disclosure of informat | 1 | 1993–1993 |
United States v. Agurs
green
2 sentences1990The due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment "apply equally to the comparable clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applicable to trials in state courts.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 , 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2399 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). 1990The due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment "apply equally to the comparable clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applicable to trials in state courts.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 , 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2399 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Moor v. County of Alameda
green
2 sentences1981See Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 , 98 S.Ct. 1991 , 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693 , 93 S.Ct. 1785 , 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973). [4] *461 We find that the trial court erred in ruling that a state wrongful death action was the plaintiffs' sole method of recovery in Colorado. [5] In order to guide the trial court in its conduct of proceedings on remand, we go on to determine whether any of the plaintiffs in this case are entitled to assert a claim for relief under § 1983 that allows a recovery of damages different from the remedies and limitations that apply to pl 1981See Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 , 98 S.Ct. 1991 , 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693 , 93 S.Ct. 1785 , 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973). [4] *461 We find that the trial court erred in ruling that a state wrongful death action was the plaintiffs' sole method of recovery in Colorado. [5] In order to guide the trial court in its conduct of proceedings on remand, we go on to determine whether any of the plaintiffs in this case are entitled to assert a claim for relief under § 1983 that allows a recovery of damages different from the remedies and limitations that apply to pl | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.