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 1964–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Blackwellgreen2 sentences2015Cf. Blackwell, 251 P.3d at 474 (trial court could not compel an answer where the prosecutor and the witness’s attorney indicated witness may have had a valid claim of privilege). ¶ 117 Based on the information before- it, the trial court was faced with a dilemma: (1) sustain the invocation of privilege, as it did; or (2) seek out yet another judge to hold an additional ex parte hearing regarding Harris’s criminal exposure in the 2001 incident, ¶ 118 We conclude the trial court did riot abuse its discretion by deciding to proceed in the manner it did. 2015Blackwell, 251 P.3d at 474 . ■ ¶ 114 At the outset, we note that the trial court gave defense counsel an opportunity to set forth the issues to be addressed at the ex parte hearing before a different judge. | 1 | 1 |
DeStefano v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences2007In Thompson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 84 P.3d 496, 505 (Colo.2004), we left undecided the question whether a lis pendens filing comes within the ex parte exception to the favorable termination requirement. 2007In Thompson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 84 P.3d 496, 505 (Colo.2004), we left undecided the question whether a lis pendens filing comes within the ex parte exception to the favorable termination requirement. | 1 | 1 |
Walford v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc.green2 sentences2004See Walford v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 793 P.2d 620, 623 (Colo.App.1990); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 674 & cmt. k (1977). 2004Walford, 793 P.2d at 623 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martorell v. J. Ochoa & Brother
green
2 sentences1978In re Speakership of the House of Representatives, 15 Colo. 520 , 25 P. 707 (1890). 1978In re Speakership of the House of Representatives, 15 Colo. 520 , 25 P. 707 (1890). | 2 | 1978–1978 |
In re Speakership of the House of Representatives
green
2 sentences1978In re Speakership of the House of Representatives, 15 Colo. 520 , 25 P. 707 (1890). 1978In re Speakership of the House of Representatives, 15 Colo. 520 , 25 P. 707 (1890). | 2 | 1978–1978 |
Hewitt v. Rice
green
2 sentences2007Affirming the court of appeals' decision in Hewitt v. Rice, 119 P.3d 541 (Colo.App.2004), we now decide that a lis pendens is not an ex parte action and is not exempt from the favorable termination requirement. 2007Affirming the court of appeals' decision in Hewitt v. Rice, 119 P.3d 541 (Colo.App.2004), we now decide that a lis pendens is not an ex parte action and is not exempt from the favorable termination requirement. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Peschong
green
2 sentences1974In People v. Peschong, 181 Colo. 29 , 506 P.2d 1232 (1973), we stated: “The standards of probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information given to an affiant police officer by an unidentified informant are set forth in Spinelli v. United States, and Aguilar v. Texas, [citations omitted]. 1974In People v. Peschong, 181 Colo. 29 , 506 P.2d 1232 (1973), we stated: “The standards of probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information given to an affiant police officer by an unidentified informant are set forth in Spinelli v. United States, and Aguilar v. Texas, [citations omitted]. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Hess v. Pawloski
green
2 sentences1964However, many courts have reached a contrary conclusion, either in avowed *184 repudiation of the general rule or in attempted differentiation of the particular facts or circumstances or the particular mode of constructive service involved.” (Emphasis supplied.) In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352 , 71 L. 1964However, many courts have reached a contrary conclusion, either in avowed *184 repudiation of the general rule or in attempted differentiation of the particular facts or circumstances or the particular mode of constructive service involved.” (Emphasis supplied.) In Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U. S. 352 , 71 L. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.