7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Howardgreen2 sentences2012People v. Hankins, 201 P.3d 1215, 1219 (Colo.2009) (citing People v. Minjares, 81 P.3d 348, 353 (Colo.2003)). 115 The trial court's inquiry "is limited to an objective reasonable person standard." Howard, 92 P.3d at 451 . 2011People v. Howard, 92 P.3d 445, 451 (Colo.2004). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Ellisongreen2 sentences2016“Knowledge” does not mean knowledge of a particular restraint or knowledge of the duration of restraint. ¶ 10 The second part of the definition of knowledge, while referring to the use of an objective reasonable person standard, still “requires that the particular defendant possess knowledge of those circumstances that would trigger a reasonable person to believe his license was under restraint.” Ellison, 14 P.3d at 1036-37 (emphasis added). 2016The defendant must be “actually aware of specific circumstances.” Id. at 1037 . | 1 | 1 |
Craig v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2014Such determination is made based on an objective reasonable person test, In other words, we must ascertain the "meaning a reasonable person would have attached [to the plea agreement] under the cireum-stances." Craig, 986 P.2d at 961. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hughesgreen1 sentence2014Id. at 465 . "[Blecause the test of custody is an objective one, unarticulated thoughts or views of the officers and suspects are irrelevant." Elmarr, 181 P.3d at 1162 ; accord Hughes, 252 P.3d at 1121 (courts are guided by many factors, "none of which, however, are subjective"); Matheny, 46 P.3d at 457 (applying "formal arrest" standard and reversing trial court where decision to suppress "was based primarily on the subjective intent of the officers"). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mathenygreen2 sentences2014Matheny, 46 P.3d at 465-66 . 118 The Mirando custody determination is an objective reasonable person standard. 2014Id. at 465 . "[Blecause the test of custody is an objective one, unarticulated thoughts or views of the officers and suspects are irrelevant." Elmarr, 181 P.3d at 1162 ; accord Hughes, 252 P.3d at 1121 (courts are guided by many factors, "none of which, however, are subjective"); Matheny, 46 P.3d at 457 (applying "formal arrest" standard and reversing trial court where decision to suppress "was based primarily on the subjective intent of the officers"). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Minjarezgreen1 sentence2012People v. Hankins, 201 P.3d 1215, 1219 (Colo.2009) (citing People v. Minjares, 81 P.3d 348, 353 (Colo.2003)). 115 The trial court's inquiry "is limited to an objective reasonable person standard." Howard, 92 P.3d at 451 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hankinsgreen1 sentence2012People v. Hankins, 201 P.3d 1215, 1219 (Colo.2009) (citing People v. Minjares, 81 P.3d 348, 353 (Colo.2003)). 115 The trial court's inquiry "is limited to an objective reasonable person standard." Howard, 92 P.3d at 451 . | 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. Elmarr
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 465 . "[Blecause the test of custody is an objective one, unarticulated thoughts or views of the officers and suspects are irrelevant." Elmarr, 181 P.3d at 1162 ; accord Hughes, 252 P.3d at 1121 (courts are guided by many factors, "none of which, however, are subjective"); Matheny, 46 P.3d at 457 (applying "formal arrest" standard and reversing trial court where decision to suppress "was based primarily on the subjective intent of the officers"). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Stansbury v. California
green
2 sentences2012Thatis, the custody assessment "depends on the objective cireumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned." Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 323 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 . 2012Thatis, the custody assessment "depends on the objective cireumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned." Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 323 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kennedy Associates, Inc. v. Fischer
green
1 sentence2002Kennedy Assocs., Inc. v. Fischer, 667 P.2d 174 (Alaska 1983); Hutton v. Monograms Plus, Inc., supra; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 228. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Trujillo
green
2 sentences2002Id. at 123 . 2002Id. at 123 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.