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 1996–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Witso v. Overbygreen2 sentences2000The court must give a presumed father the opportunity to rebut this presumption before ordering a final judgment"); In re Witso v. Overby, 609 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn.Ct.App.2000), reh'g granted, 2000 Minn. LEXIS 464 (Minn. 2000) (noting that the "limited consequence" of genetic testing is that it gives rise to one of two conflicting presumptions of fatherhood which must then be resolved on the basis of policy and logic), petition for further review granted; In re K.E.N., 513 N.W.2d 892, 897 (N.D.1994) (holding that genetic testing results created a presumption which is rebuttable). [6] In this 2000The court must give a presumed father the opportunity to rebut this presumption before ordering a final judgment"); In re Witso v. Overby, 609 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn.Ct.App.2000), reh'g granted, 2000 Minn. LEXIS 464 (Minn.2000) (noting that the "limited consequence" of genetic testing is that it gives rise to one of two conflicting presumptions of fatherhood which must then be resolved on the basis of policy and logic), petition for further review granted; In re K.E.N., 513 N.W.2d 892, 897 (N.D.1994) (holding that genetic testing results created a presumption which is rebuttable). . | 2 | 2 |
Ken by Shasky v. Rcgreen2 sentences2000The court must give a presumed father the opportunity to rebut this presumption before ordering a final judgment"); In re Witso v. Overby, 609 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn.Ct.App.2000), reh'g granted, 2000 Minn. LEXIS 464 (Minn. 2000) (noting that the "limited consequence" of genetic testing is that it gives rise to one of two conflicting presumptions of fatherhood which must then be resolved on the basis of policy and logic), petition for further review granted; In re K.E.N., 513 N.W.2d 892, 897 (N.D.1994) (holding that genetic testing results created a presumption which is rebuttable). [6] In this 2000The court must give a presumed father the opportunity to rebut this presumption before ordering a final judgment"); In re Witso v. Overby, 609 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn.Ct.App.2000), reh'g granted, 2000 Minn. LEXIS 464 (Minn.2000) (noting that the "limited consequence" of genetic testing is that it gives rise to one of two conflicting presumptions of fatherhood which must then be resolved on the basis of policy and logic), petition for further review granted; In re K.E.N., 513 N.W.2d 892, 897 (N.D.1994) (holding that genetic testing results created a presumption which is rebuttable). . | 2 | 2 |
Krueger v. Arygreen1 sentence2019“Rebuttable presumptions have a limited purpose.” Krueger v. Ary, 205 P.3d 1150, 1154 (Colo. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Germanygreen1 sentence1996In People v. Germany, we stated: Thus, while the state may enact reasonable requirements for collateral challenges to prior criminal convictions, thereby ensuring that claims will be raised at a time when they may be easily determined and necessary corrective action taken, it may not do so without providing a criminally accused a meaningful opportunity to challenge allegedly unconstitutional convictions which the government seeks to use against him in a pending criminal prosecution. 674 P.2d 345, 350 (Colo.1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Friedland v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 643 . ¶ 19 Ten years later, the supreme court rejected the application of the notice-prejudice rule to notice provisions in “claims-made” (as Thus, an occurrence policy provides coverage for events occurring during the policy period (even if the claim is brought years later) while a claims-made policy provides potential coverage for events claimed (but not necessarily occurring) during the policy period. 2013Kesinger denied policy benefits to an insured because "if [the insured] wished to avail himself of the protection of the policy, it was incumbent on him to give notice to the company, as he did, and on receipt of its answer, as appears, to remain inactive pending action in court against him." ° Id. 1 48 Kesinger, however, reflects the traditional bright-line rule that Friedland and Clementi expressly rejected in favor of a case-by-case analysis, See Friedland, 105 P.3d at 648 insured, despite having made a unilateral settlement without notice to the insurer, must have an opportunity to rebut t | 2 | 2013–2016 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
1 sentence2025We express no opinion on how the district court should rule after its hearing on remand. --------- Notes: [1] In Franks , the Supreme Court held that a defendant has the right to a hearing to contest the truthfulness of a search warrant affidavit under certain conditions. 438 U.S. at 155 -56 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Kesinger v. Commercial Standard Insurance
green
1 sentence2013Kesinger denied policy benefits to an insured because "if [the insured] wished to avail himself of the protection of the policy, it was incumbent on him to give notice to the company, as he did, and on receipt of its answer, as appears, to remain inactive pending action in court against him." ° Id. 1 48 Kesinger, however, reflects the traditional bright-line rule that Friedland and Clementi expressly rejected in favor of a case-by-case analysis, See Friedland, 105 P.3d at 648 insured, despite having made a unilateral settlement without notice to the insurer, must have an opportunity to rebut t | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.