7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Parfreygreen2 sentences2011Co. v. Parfrey, 830 P.2d 905, 912 (Colo.1992) (applying this standard for offers of uninsured/un-derinsured motorist coverage); Munger, 174 P.3d at 834 (adopting the Parfrey analysis for offers of enhanced PIP coverage). 2011Co. v. Parfrey, 830 P.2d 905, 912 (Colo.1992) (applying this standard for offers of uninsured/un-derinsured motorist coverage); Munger, 174 P.3d at 834 (adopting the Parfrey analysis for offers of enhanced PIP coverage). | 2 | 4 |
Munger v. Farmers Ins. Exchangegreen2 sentences2011Co. v. Parfrey, 830 P.2d 905, 912 (Colo.1992) (applying this standard for offers of uninsured/un-derinsured motorist coverage); Munger, 174 P.3d at 834 (adopting the Parfrey analysis for offers of enhanced PIP coverage). 2011Co. v. Parfrey, 830 P.2d 905, 912 (Colo.1992) (applying this standard for offers of uninsured/un-derinsured motorist coverage); Munger, 174 P.3d at 834 (adopting the Parfrey analysis for offers of enhanced PIP coverage). | 1 | 3 |
Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences2021Co. , 158 F. App'x 119, 122 (10th Cir. 2005) ("Although the lack of a discussion of the price of enhanced [personal injury protection] insurance is an important factor under the Parfrey analysis, State Farm's failure to inform [the insured] about the specific cost does not in itself render the offer commercially unreasonable."). 2021Co. , 158 F. App'x 119, 122 (10th Cir. 2005) ("Although the lack of a discussion of the price of enhanced [personal injury protection] insurance is an important factor under the Parfrey analysis, State Farm's failure to inform [the insured] about the specific cost does not in itself render the offer commercially unreasonable."). | 1 | 1 |
Olson v. City of Goldengreen2 sentences2015See, eg., Macurdy v. Faure, 176 P.3d 880, 882 (Colo.App.2007) (examining the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue a county coroner for failing to perform a statutorily required autopsy); Olson v. City of Golden, 53 P.3d 747, 752 (Colo.App.2002) (examining three criteria indistinguishable from the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue the city for violating an urban renewal law). 2015See, eg., Macurdy v. Faure, 176 P.3d 880, 882 (Colo.App.2007) (examining the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue a county coroner for failing to perform a statutorily required autopsy); Olson v. City of Golden, 53 P.3d 747, 752 (Colo.App.2002) (examining three criteria indistinguishable from the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue the city for violating an urban renewal law). | 1 | 1 |
MacUrdy v. Fauregreen2 sentences2015See, eg., Macurdy v. Faure, 176 P.3d 880, 882 (Colo.App.2007) (examining the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue a county coroner for failing to perform a statutorily required autopsy); Olson v. City of Golden, 53 P.3d 747, 752 (Colo.App.2002) (examining three criteria indistinguishable from the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue the city for violating an urban renewal law). 2015See, eg., Macurdy v. Faure, 176 P.3d 880, 882 (Colo.App.2007) (examining the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue a county coroner for failing to perform a statutorily required autopsy); Olson v. City of Golden, 53 P.3d 747, 752 (Colo.App.2002) (examining three criteria indistinguishable from the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue the city for violating an urban renewal law). | 1 | 1 |
Padhiar v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen1 sentence2007Co., 479 F.3d 727, 733-34 (10th Cir.2007)(applying Parfrey analysis to determine adequacy of State Farm's offer of optional enhanced PIP coverage, and citing unpublished federal cases that have reached differing conclusions regarding Parfrey's applicability to the issue), with Lust v. State Farm Mut. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Olson v. City of Goldengreen2 sentences2015See, eg., Macurdy v. Faure, 176 P.3d 880, 882 (Colo.App.2007) (examining the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue a county coroner for failing to perform a statutorily required autopsy); Olson v. City of Golden, 53 P.3d 747, 752 (Colo.App.2002) (examining three criteria indistinguishable from the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue the city for violating an urban renewal law). 2015See, eg., Macurdy v. Faure, 176 P.3d 880, 882 (Colo.App.2007) (examining the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue a county coroner for failing to perform a statutorily required autopsy); Olson v. City of Golden, 53 P.3d 747, 752 (Colo.App.2002) (examining three criteria indistinguishable from the Parfrey factors in holding that the plaintiff could not sue the city for violating an urban renewal law). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Capital Securities of America, Inc. v. Griffin
green
2 sentences2015As such, the Act is materially different from, for example, a statute that authorizes a public entity that purchased unlawful securities to âforce the seller to repurchase the securities,â Griffin, ¶ 22, 278 P.3d at 346 , or a statute that âclearly permits a private party to seek injunctive reliefâ for violation of an oil and gas statute, Gerrity Oil, 946 P.2d at 925 . 10 ¶19       Because the Act features no explicit remedies, we must turn to the three Parfrey factors. 2015As such, the Act is materially different from, for example, a statute that authorizes a public entity that purchased unlawful securities to "force the seller to repurchase the securities," Griffin ¶ 22, 278 P.3d at 346 , or a statute that "clearly permits a private party to seek injunctive relief" for violation of an oil and gas statute, Gerrity Oil, 946 P.2d at 925 . 10 119 Because the Act features no explicit remedies, we must turn to the three Parfrey factors. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness
green
2 sentences2015As such, the Act is materially different from, for example, a statute that authorizes a public entity that purchased unlawful securities to âforce the seller to repurchase the securities,â Griffin, ¶ 22, 278 P.3d at 346 , or a statute that âclearly permits a private party to seek injunctive reliefâ for violation of an oil and gas statute, Gerrity Oil, 946 P.2d at 925 . 10 ¶19       Because the Act features no explicit remedies, we must turn to the three Parfrey factors. 2015As such, the Act is materially different from, for example, a statute that authorizes a public entity that purchased unlawful securities to "force the seller to repurchase the securities," Griffin ¶ 22, 278 P.3d at 346 , or a statute that "clearly permits a private party to seek injunctive relief" for violation of an oil and gas statute, Gerrity Oil, 946 P.2d at 925 . 10 119 Because the Act features no explicit remedies, we must turn to the three Parfrey factors. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.