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 1 courts 1992–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Blue River Irrigation Co.green1 sentence2000See Blue River III, 829 P.2d at 1277 ; Public Serv. | 1 | 1 |
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District v. Board of County Commissionersgreen1 sentence1996Compare Vidler, 197 Colo, at 417, 594 P.2d at 568 (“To recognize conditional decrees grounded on no interest beyond a desire to obtain water for sale would—as a practical matter—discourage those who have need and use for the water from developing it.”) with Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy Dist. v. Board of County Comm’rs of Arapahoe County, 841 P.2d 1061, 1065 (Colo.1992) (requirement of diligence prevents “ ‘the accumulation of conditional water rights without diligent efforts to complete the projects to the detriment of those needing and seeking to make immediate beneficial use of the | 1 | 1 |
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Vidler Tunnel Water Co.green1 sentence1996Compare Vidler, 197 Colo, at 417, 594 P.2d at 568 (“To recognize conditional decrees grounded on no interest beyond a desire to obtain water for sale would—as a practical matter—discourage those who have need and use for the water from developing it.”) with Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy Dist. v. Board of County Comm’rs of Arapahoe County, 841 P.2d 1061, 1065 (Colo.1992) (requirement of diligence prevents “ ‘the accumulation of conditional water rights without diligent efforts to complete the projects to the detriment of those needing and seeking to make immediate beneficial use of the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schmidt v. Langel
green
2 sentences2016The division added, however, that if such a re-examination does not reveal a correct address, then "[the treasurer need not inquire into every possible source for the correct address of the record interest holder." Id. | 1] 26 In our view, these cases follow properly from section 89-11-128(1) because each case ensured that the treasurer exercised reasonable diligence before sending the notice, which is the only diligence requirement set forth in the statute. 2016The division added, however, that if such a re-examination does not reveal a correct address, then “[t]he treasurer need not inquire into every possible source for the correct address of the record interest holder.” Id. ¶26 In our view, these cases follow properly from section 39-11-128(1) because each case ensured that the treasurer exercised reasonable diligence before sending the notice, which is the only diligence requirement set forth in the statute. | 3 | 2016–2016 |
City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co.
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 51 . [7] In addition to demonstrating non-speculative intent, a governmental agency must satisfy the "can and will" requirement in order to obtain a conditional decree. 2007Id. at 51 . 7 In addition to demonstrating non-speculative intent, a governmental agency must satisfy the "can and will" requirement in order to obtain a conditional decree. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Trans-County Water, Inc. v. Central Colorado Water Conservancy District
green
1 sentence1992The water court stated that, prior to the adoption of the 1990 statute, the standard for showing diligence was set forth in Trans-County Water, Inc. v. Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, 727 P.2d 60 (Colo.1986). 6 The water court concluded that the 1990 statute modified the diligence standard set forth in Trans-County. 7 As a result, the water court concluded “that the standard adopted by the statute is less onerous than the standard in Trans County." The water court also stated that “[i]t is the court’s understanding of the statutory measure that many facts and circumstances are to | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.
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.