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 1985–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewergreen2 sentences2026Id. (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)). ¶ 12 Olivas does not argue that he was denied these protections during the revocation proceeding in the district court. 1985Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Atenciogreen2 sentences2007See People v. Atencio, 186 Colo. 76, 78-79 , 525 P.2d 461, 462 (1974). 2007See People v. Atencio, 186 Colo. 76, 78-79 , 525 P.2d 461, 462 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Eldergreen1 sentence2003People v. Atencio, supra (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, and Gagmon v. supra); People v. McCoy, supra; see also People v. Elder, 36 P.3d 172 (Colo.App.2001){oral findings on the record satisfy the "written statement" requirement); People in Interest of TMH., 821 P.2d 895 (Colo.App.1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. McCoy
green
2 sentences2026Id. (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)). ¶ 12 Olivas does not argue that he was denied these protections during the revocation proceeding in the district court. 2006People v. McCoy, supra. As in probation and parole revocation hearings, due process at a YOS revocation hearing requires (1) written notice of the claimed violations; (2) disclosure to the defendant of the evidence against him or her; (3) a fair opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adversarial witnesses, unless there is good cause to deny such a right; (5) a neutral and detached hearing officer or judge; and (6) a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and reasons for the revo | 4 | 2003–2026 |
People v. Scura
green
1 sentence2007People v. Scura, supra, 72 P.3d at 435 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People in Interest of TMH
green
1 sentence2003People v. Atencio, supra (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, and Gagmon v. supra); People v. McCoy, supra; see also People v. Elder, 36 P.3d 172 (Colo.App.2001){oral findings on the record satisfy the "written statement" requirement); People in Interest of TMH., 821 P.2d 895 (Colo.App.1991). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.