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 1983–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Estate of Cosmangreen2 sentences1995See In re Estate of Cosman, 475 A.2d at 662 ; Orlando, 705 P.2d at 598 (oral contract not meeting requirements of the succession statute cannot be enforced on the basis of a part-performance exception); Olesen v. Manty, 438 N.W.2d 404, 409 (Minn.App.1989) (application of part-performance exception to statute of frauds is inapplicable to succession statute). 1986Cf. In re Estate of Cosman, 193 N.J.Super. 664 , 475 A.2d 659 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
Ralston Oil and Gas Co. v. July Corp.green2 sentences1995See Ralston, 719 P.2d at 339 (inducement is a question of fact). 1995See Ralston, 719 P.2d at 339 (inducement is a question of fact). | 1 | 2 |
A & R CO. v. Union Air Transport, Inc.green1 sentence2005See A & R Co. v. Union Air Transport, Inc., supra, 738 P.2d at 74 ). | 1 | 1 |
Boesiger v. Freergreen2 sentences1995Because I would not adopt this latter qualifier to the part performance doctrine, I believe that the grant of summary judgment regarding Nelson’s breach of contract claim was premature considering the parties’ disagreement over the factual questions of (1) whether Nelson’s alleged part performance was substantial enough to overcome a statute of frauds defense, see Adcock v. Lieber, 51 Colo. 373, 376 , 117 P. 993, 994 (1911) (alleged part performance is in part a question of fact); Boesiger v. Freer, 85 Idaho 551, 553 , 381 P.2d 802, 804 (1963) (“[wjhat constitutes part performance must depend 1995Because I would not adopt this latter qualifier to the part performance doctrine, I believe that the grant of summary judgment regarding Nelson’s breach of contract claim was premature considering the parties’ disagreement over the factual questions of (1) whether Nelson’s alleged part performance was substantial enough to overcome a statute of frauds defense, see Adcock v. Lieber, 51 Colo. 373, 376 , 117 P. 993, 994 (1911) (alleged part performance is in part a question of fact); Boesiger v. Freer, 85 Idaho 551, 553 , 381 P.2d 802, 804 (1963) (“[wjhat constitutes part performance must depend | 1 | 1 |
Adcock v. Liebergreen2 sentences1995Because I would not adopt this latter qualifier to the part performance doctrine, I believe that the grant of summary judgment regarding Nelson’s breach of contract claim was premature considering the parties’ disagreement over the factual questions of (1) whether Nelson’s alleged part performance was substantial enough to overcome a statute of frauds defense, see Adcock v. Lieber, 51 Colo. 373, 376 , 117 P. 993, 994 (1911) (alleged part performance is in part a question of fact); Boesiger v. Freer, 85 Idaho 551, 553 , 381 P.2d 802, 804 (1963) (“[wjhat constitutes part performance must depend 1995Because I would not adopt this latter qualifier to the part performance doctrine, I believe that the grant of summary judgment regarding Nelson’s breach of contract claim was premature considering the parties’ disagreement over the factual questions of (1) whether Nelson’s alleged part performance was substantial enough to overcome a statute of frauds defense, see Adcock v. Lieber, 51 Colo. 373, 376 , 117 P. 993, 994 (1911) (alleged part performance is in part a question of fact); Boesiger v. Freer, 85 Idaho 551, 553 , 381 P.2d 802, 804 (1963) (“[wjhat constitutes part performance must depend | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Elwoodgreen2 sentences1995See Brown, 29 N.W. at 137 . 1995See 73 Am.Jur.2d Statute of Frauds § 408; cf Brown, 29 N.W. at 137, 138-39 . | 1 | 1 |
Orlando v. Prewettgreen1 sentence1995See In re Estate of Cosman, 475 A.2d at 662 ; Orlando, 705 P.2d at 598 (oral contract not meeting requirements of the succession statute cannot be enforced on the basis of a part-performance exception); Olesen v. Manty, 438 N.W.2d 404, 409 (Minn.App.1989) (application of part-performance exception to statute of frauds is inapplicable to succession statute). | 1 | 1 |
Blasingame v. American Materials, Inc.green2 sentences1995Because I would not adopt this latter qualifier to the part performance doctrine, I believe that the grant of summary judgment regarding Nelson’s breach of contract claim was premature considering the parties’ disagreement over the factual questions of (1) whether Nelson’s alleged part performance was substantial enough to overcome a statute of frauds defense, see Adcock v. Lieber, 51 Colo. 373, 376 , 117 P. 993, 994 (1911) (alleged part performance is in part a question of fact); Boesiger v. Freer, 85 Idaho 551, 553 , 381 P.2d 802, 804 (1963) (“[wjhat constitutes part performance must depend 1995Because I would not adopt this latter qualifier to the part performance doctrine, I believe that the grant of summary judgment regarding Nelson's breach of contract claim was premature considering the parties' disagreement over the factual questions of (1) whether Nelson's alleged part performance was substantial enough to overcome a statute of frauds defense, see Adcock v. Lieber, 51 Colo. 373, 376 , 117 P. 993, 994 (1911) (alleged part performance is in part a question of fact); Boesiger v. Freer, 85 Idaho 551, 553 , 381 P.2d 802, 804 (1963) ("[w]hat constitutes part performance must depend | 1 | 1 |
Olesen v. Mantygreen1 sentence1995See In re Estate of Cosman, 475 A.2d at 662 ; Orlando, 705 P.2d at 598 (oral contract not meeting requirements of the succession statute cannot be enforced on the basis of a part-performance exception); Olesen v. Manty, 438 N.W.2d 404, 409 (Minn.App.1989) (application of part-performance exception to statute of frauds is inapplicable to succession statute). | 1 | 1 |
Rieck v. Rieckgreen2 sentences1994See Rieck v. Rieck, 724 P.2d 674 (1986). 1994See Rieck v. Rieck, 724 P.2d 674 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Sackett v. Rodeckgreen2 sentences1990See Sackett v. Rodeck, 75 Colo. 425 , 226 P. 295 (1924); Ralston Oil & Gas Co. v. July Corp., 719 P.2d 334 (Colo.App.1985). 1990See Sackett v. Rodeck, 75 Colo. 425 , 226 P. 295 (1924); Ralston Oil & Gas Co. v. July Corp., 719 P.2d 334 (Colo.App.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
L.U. Cattle Co. v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1995U. Cattle, 714 P.2d at 1347-48 , gives no effect to a determination that partial performance was procured through misrepresentations or other fraudulent means, the standard is a poor embodiment of the traditional principles underlying the part performance doctrine. 1995Cattle, 714 P.2d at 1347-48 , gives no effect to a determination that partial performance was procured through misrepresentations or other fraudulent means, the standard is a poor embodiment of the traditional principles underlying the part performance doctrine. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
McCrea & Co. Auctioneers, Inc. v. Dwyer Auto Body
green
2 sentences1995Id. 1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Siler v. Investment Securities Co.
green
2 sentences1995Siler , 125 Colo, at 445, 244 P.2d at 881 ; L.U. 1995Siler, 125 Colo. at 445 , 244 P.2d at 881 ; L.U. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Colorado Carpet Installation, Inc. v. Palermo
green
1 sentence1983As the carpeting was neither received nor accepted by the defendant, the part performance exception cannot apply to validate that portion of the contract.” 647 P.2d at 688 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.