7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2023 5 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 in Interest of TWgreen2 sentences2023See T.W., 797 P.2d at 822 (“[C]lear and convincing evidence of irremediable conduct is no less relevant a consideration at a dispositional hearing following a dependency and neglect adjudication than it would be at a termination hearing.”). 2023See T.W., 797 P.2d at 822 (“[C]lear and convincing evidence of irremediable conduct is no less relevant a consideration at a dispositional hearing following a dependency and neglect adjudication than it would be at a termination hearing.”). | 5 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
L.L. v. People
green
2 sentences2023But the requisite burden of proof “turns in large part on both the nature of the threatened private interest and the permanency of the threatened loss,” L.L., 10 P.3d at 1276 , and neither the statute nor our case law supports such a high burden of proof for any stage of proceedings other than termination. ¶32 The legislature expressly provided a clear and convincing evidence burden only in the termination statutes. 2023But the requisite burden of proof “turns in large part on both the nature of the threatened private interest and the permanency of the threatened loss,” L.L., 10 P.3d at 1276 , and neither the statute nor our case law supports such a high burden of proof for any stage of proceedings other than termination. 16 ¶34 The legislature expressly provided a clear and convincing evidence burden only in the termination statutes. | 5 | 2023–2023 |
People v. DISTRICT COURT FOR 17TH JUD. DIST.
green
2 sentences1990Because the plan, by its nature, should address "conduct that must be remedied," see People v. District Court, supra , it follows that clear and convincing evidence of irremediable conduct is no less relevant a consideration at a dispositional hearing following a dependency and neglect adjudication than it would be at a termination hearing. 1990Because the plan, by its nature, should address “conduct that must be remedied,” see People v. District Court, supra, it follows that clear and convincing evidence of irremediable conduct is no less relevant a consideration at a dispositional hearing following a dependency and neglect adjudication than it would be at a termination hearing. | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.