7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Double Oak Construction L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Development International, L.L.C.green1 sentence2011Id. ("[The elements for a civil conspiracy claim require that the underlying acts be unlawful and create an independent cause of action."). | 1 | 1 |
Schlotthauer v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2011That being the case we find the ... cause of action for conspiracy is also time-barred.") (citations omitted); Meyer Land & Cattle Co. v. Lincoln County Conservation Dist., 29 Kan.App.2d 746 , 31 P.3d 970, 977 (2001) (recognizing that, although civil conspiracy is a separate, actionable tort, a conspiracy claim is barred where the underlying tort is barred by the applicable statute of limitations); Schlotthauer v. Sanders, 153 A.D.2d 731 , 545 N.Y.S.2d 197, 199 (N.Y.App.Div.1989) ("because conspiracy is not an independent tort, ... [it] is time-barred when the substantive tort underlying it is 2011That being the case we find the ... cause of action for conspiracy is also time-barred.") (citations omitted); Meyer Land & Cattle Co. v. Lincoln County Conservation Dist., 29 Kan.App.2d 746 , 31 P.3d 970, 977 (2001) (recognizing that, although civil conspiracy is a separate, actionable tort, a conspiracy claim is barred where the underlying tort is barred by the applicable statute of limitations); Schlotthauer v. Sanders, 153 A.D.2d 731 , 545 N.Y.S.2d 197, 199 (N.Y.App.Div.1989) ("because conspiracy is not an independent tort, ... [it] is time-barred when the substantive tort underlying it is | 1 | 1 |
Meyer Land & Cattle Co. v. Lincoln County Conservation Districtgreen2 sentences2011That being the case we find the ... cause of action for conspiracy is also time-barred.") (citations omitted); Meyer Land & Cattle Co. v. Lincoln County Conservation Dist., 29 Kan.App.2d 746 , 31 P.3d 970, 977 (2001) (recognizing that, although civil conspiracy is a separate, actionable tort, a conspiracy claim is barred where the underlying tort is barred by the applicable statute of limitations); Schlotthauer v. Sanders, 153 A.D.2d 731 , 545 N.Y.S.2d 197, 199 (N.Y.App.Div.1989) ("because conspiracy is not an independent tort, ... [it] is time-barred when the substantive tort underlying it is 2011That being the case we find the ... cause of action for conspiracy is also time-barred.") (citations omitted); Meyer Land & Cattle Co. v. Lincoln County Conservation Dist., 29 Kan.App.2d 746 , 31 P.3d 970, 977 (2001) (recognizing that, although civil conspiracy is a separate, actionable tort, a conspiracy claim is barred where the underlying tort is barred by the applicable statute of limitations); Schlotthauer v. Sanders, 153 A.D.2d 731 , 545 N.Y.S.2d 197, 199 (N.Y.App.Div.1989) ("because conspiracy is not an independent tort, ... [it] is time-barred when the substantive tort underlying it is | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Kaisergreen2 sentences2003Miller v. Kaiser, 164 Colo. 206, 212 , 433 P.2d 772, 775 (1967), instructs that in fraudulent conveyance actions, “the remedy sought is to return the property fraudulently conveyed to its prior status of ownership thereby bringing it within reach of the judgment creditor of the fraudulent transferor.” In Miller , a conspiracy claim was dismissed because no special damages were pleaded. 2003Miller v. Kaiser, 164 Colo. 206, 212 , 433 P.2d 772, 775 (1967), instructs that in fraudulent conveyance actions, “the remedy sought is to return the property fraudulently conveyed to its prior status of ownership thereby bringing it within reach of the judgment creditor of the fraudulent transferor.” In Miller , a conspiracy claim was dismissed because no special damages were pleaded. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Zufelt Ex Rel. Zufeltgreen2 sentences2002Ker-ster argues that the plain terms of that statute require a reduction of the aggregate claim by a percentage of the fault attributable to the settling defendant “pursuant to section 13-21-111.5.” He also refers us to Smith v. Zufelt, 880 P.2d 1178, 1188 (Colo.1994), in which the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that “in all instances in which a settlement agreement is reached with one or more-parties in order to avoid exposure to liability at trial ... the trial verdict shall be reduced by an amount equal to the cumulative percentage of fault attributed to the settling nonparties.” However, the 2002Smith v. Zufelt, supra, 880 P.2d at 1181 n. 5. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cocagreen2 sentences1986People v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.Rptr. at 704 ; cf. People v. Coca, 185 Colo. 10, 13 , 521 P.2d 781, 783 (1974) (“A jury will not be permitted to believe the evidence for the purpose of the conspiracy and disbelieve it for the purpose of the substantive crime.”). 1986People v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.Rptr. at 704 ; cf. People v. Coca, 185 Colo. 10, 13 , 521 P.2d 781, 783 (1974) (“A jury will not be permitted to believe the evidence for the purpose of the conspiracy and disbelieve it for the purpose of the substantive crime.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martinez v. Estate of Bleck Ex Rel. Churchill
green
1 sentence2018We conclude that 4 Under Trinity, a district court, rather than a jury, determines issues relating to a governmental immunity claim, “including factual issues, regardless of whether those issues are jurisdictional in nature.” Martinez v. Estate of Bleck, 2016 CO 58, ¶ 5 . 5 The district court specifically addressed the civil conspiracy claim, saying that since the conspiracy claim against the District is barred, “there cannot be a conspiracy at all.” 4 the court erred in applying the CGIA, in part.6 But we agree with the district court that the BSA is void. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Draper v. DeFrenchi-Gordineer
green
1 sentence2011That being the case we find the ... cause of action for conspiracy is also time-barred.") (citations omitted); Meyer Land & Cattle Co. v. Lincoln County Conservation Dist., 29 Kan.App.2d 746 , 31 P.3d 970, 977 (2001) (recognizing that, although civil conspiracy is a separate, actionable tort, a conspiracy claim is barred where the underlying tort is barred by the applicable statute of limitations); Schlotthauer v. Sanders, 153 A.D.2d 731 , 545 N.Y.S.2d 197, 199 (N.Y.App.Div.1989) ("because conspiracy is not an independent tort, ... [it] is time-barred when the substantive tort underlying it is | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Summers v. Hagen
green
1 sentence2003Summers v. Hagen, 852 P.2d 1165 (Alaska 1993); McElhanon v. Hing, supra; Dalton v. Meister, 71 Wis.2d 504 , 239 N.W.2d 9 (1976). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
McElhanon v. Hing
green
2 sentences2003McElhanon v. Hing, 151 Ariz. 386 , 728 P.2d 256 (Ct.App.1985)(a legal wrong will support a conspiracy claim), ajfd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 151 Ariz. 403 , 728 P.2d 273 (1986). 2003McElhanon v. Hing, 151 Ariz. 386 , 728 P.2d 256 (Ct.App.1985)(a legal wrong will support a conspiracy claim), ajfd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 151 Ariz. 403 , 728 P.2d 273 (1986). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
McElhanon v. Hing
green
2 sentences2003McElhanon v. Hing, 151 Ariz. 386 , 728 P.2d 256 (Ct.App.1985)(a legal wrong will support a conspiracy claim), ajfd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 151 Ariz. 403 , 728 P.2d 273 (1986). 2003McElhanon v. Hing, 151 Ariz. 386 , 728 P.2d 256 (Ct.App.1985)(a legal wrong will support a conspiracy claim), ajfd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 151 Ariz. 403 , 728 P.2d 273 (1986). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Dalton v. Meister
green
2 sentences2003Summers v. Hagen, 852 P.2d 1165 (Alaska 1993); McElhanon v. Hing, supra; Dalton v. Meister, 71 Wis.2d 504 , 239 N.W.2d 9 (1976). 2003Summers v. Hagen, 852 P.2d 1165 (Alaska 1993); McElhanon v. Hing, supra; Dalton v. Meister, 71 Wis.2d 504 , 239 N.W.2d 9 (1976). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Superior Court (Jackson)
green
1 sentence1986People v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.Rptr. at 704 ; cf. People v. Coca, 185 Colo. 10, 13 , 521 P.2d 781, 783 (1974) (“A jury will not be permitted to believe the evidence for the purpose of the conspiracy and disbelieve it for the purpose of the substantive crime.”). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Michael Cohen v. Russell K. Norris
green
2 sentences1981Cohen v. Norris, 300 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1962). 1981Cohen v. Norris, 300 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1962). | 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.