7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montana v. Blixseth (In Re Blixseth)green2 sentences2015Cf. In re Blixseth , 484 B.R. 360, 369 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012) (â[W]e are persuaded that because [the debtorâs] interests in the LLC and [limited liability limited partnership] were created and exist under, and his creditorâs remedies are limited by, Nevada state law, that is sufficient reason to deem [the debtorâs] interests to be located in Nevada.â); Koh v. Inno-Pac. 2015Cf. In re Blix *1127 seth, 484 B.R. 360, 369 (9th Cir. BAP 2012) (“[W]e are persuaded that because [the debt- or’s] interests in the LLC and [limited liability limited partnership] were created and exist under, and his creditor’s remedies are limited by, Nevada state law, that is sufficient reason to deem [the debtor’s] interests to be located in Nevada.”); Koh v. Inno-Pac. | 2 | 2 |
Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n Ex Rel. Kopfman v. Kopfmangreen2 sentences2015See Kopfman , 226 P.3d at 1071 . ¶18       As demonstrated in the Colorado Limited Liability Company Act, §§ 7-80-101 to -1101, C.R.S. 2014, Colorado has an interest in limited liability companies organized in this state, and the priority rule we announce today furthers that interest. 2015See Kopfman, 226 P.3d at 1071 . ¶ 18 As demonstrated in the Colorado Limited Liability Company Act, §§ 7-80-101 to - 1101, C.R.S. 2014, Colorado has an interest in limited liability companies organized in this state, and the priority rule we announce today furthers that interest. | 2 | 2 |
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mayergreen1 sentence2015Co. v. Mayer, 833 P.2d 60, 62 (Colo.App.1992) (addressing such considerations where cases are pending in two different states; cited with approval in Town of Minturn, ¶ 19). {15 The priority rule derives from the inherent power of courts to stay proceedings before them. | 1 | 1 |
Target Corp. v. Prestige Maintenance USA, Ltd.green1 sentence2015See Target Corp. v. Prestige Maint, USA, Ltd., 2013 COA 12, ¶23 , -- P.3d -- (where issue was brought to the district court's attention and the court ruled on it, it was preserved for appellate review; no talis-manic language is required to preserve an issue). 1 14 Case law is not clear as to the standard of appellate review of an order denying a stay requested pursuant to the priority rule. | 1 | 1 |
Public Service Company of Colorado v. Millergreen1 sentence2015Co. of Colo. v. Miller, 135 Colo, 575, 577, 313 P.2d 998, 999 (1957)). { 11 Sensible argues that the priority rule required the district court to stay this case pending resolution of the quiet title action. ¶ 12 The district court rejected that argument because (1) "neither the parties or the subject matter is identical" and (2) staying the case would be contrary to the intent of section 38-85-204 and C.R.C.P. 105.1 to provide "a swift resolution to a discrete issue." We conclude that the priority rule does not apply in these circumstances, though our reasoning differs somewhat from the distri | 1 | 1 |
Colorado Department of Revenue v. Hibbsgreen1 sentence2012See People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 178 (Colo.2006) (stating that principles of statutory construction apply to rules of procedure); Colo. Dep't of Revenue v. Hibbs, 122 P.3d 999, 1002 (Colo.2005) (stating that this court reviews questions of statutory construction de novo). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Shellgreen1 sentence2012See People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 178 (Colo.2006) (stating that principles of statutory construction apply to rules of procedure); Colo. Dep't of Revenue v. Hibbs, 122 P.3d 999, 1002 (Colo.2005) (stating that this court reviews questions of statutory construction de novo). | 1 | 1 |
Landis v. North American Co.green2 sentences2012See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55 , 57 S.Ct. 163 ; Pub. 2012See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55 , 57 S.Ct. 163 ; Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF ADAMSgreen1 sentence2012See Martin, 150 Colo. at 579 , 3875 P.2d at 106. | 1 | 1 |
Universal Gypsum of Georgia, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co.green1 sentence2012Cyanamid Co., 390 F.Supp. 824, 827 (S.D.N.Y.1975). 120 Though other states have applied the priority rule to legislative proceedings, see People ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
City and County of Denver v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RSgreen2 sentences2012Comm'rs, 141 Colo. 102, 1038-04 , 347 P.2d 132, 133 (1959). 123 By applying the priority rule to void Minturn's annexation proceedings, the court of appeals in effect held that no legislative action could occur because the quiet title action had been filed in court. 2012Comm'rs, 141 Colo. 102, 1038-04 , 347 P.2d 132, 133 (1959). 123 By applying the priority rule to void Minturn's annexation proceedings, the court of appeals in effect held that no legislative action could occur because the quiet title action had been filed in court. | 1 | 1 |
United Security Insurance Co. v. Sciarrotagreen1 sentence1998Equitable subrogation “is a creature of equity having for its purpose the working out of an equitable adjustment between the parties by securing the ultimate discharge of a debt by the person who in equity and good conscience ought to pay it.” United Security Insurance Co. v. Sciarrota, 885 P.2d 273, 277 (Colo.App.1994); 16 G. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Town of Minturn v. Sensible Housing Co.
green
1 sentence2015Co., 2012 CO 23, ¶ 19 , 278 P.3d 1154 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Estates in Eagle Ridge, LLLP v. Valley Bank & Trust
green
1 sentence2015Seq, eg., Estates in Eagle Ridge, 141 P.3d at 844-45 , Perhaps that is why the supreme court has directed a district court considering whether to stay a case because of the priority rule to take into account "expense and convenience, availability 'of witnesses, the stage to which proceedings in the first action have already progressed, and the possibility of prejudice resulting from the stay." Town of Minturn, ¶ 19. 117 In light of all tlus, we conclude that the decision whether to grant a stay pursuant to the priority rule is committed to the district court's discretion. 2 Consequently, we re | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Colorado Common Cause v. Bledsoe
green
1 sentence2012Though courts in other jurisdictions have extended the rule to legislative proceedings, we have not done so in the past and decline to do so here. 7 *1160 122 To apply the priority rule in such a way would be at odds with our eaution that legislative action "cannot be coerced or restrained by the judicial process." Bledsoe, 810 P.2d at 208 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Wiltgen v. Berg
green
2 sentences2012Wiltgen concerned dueling municipal incorporation proceedings, a court petition process, which we ruled were "judicial in nature" before applying the priority rule. 164 Colo. at 145 , 435 P.2d at 381 . 2012Wiltgen concerned dueling municipal incorporation proceedings, a court petition process, which we ruled were "judicial in nature" before applying the priority rule. 164 Colo. at 145 , 435 P.2d at 381 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People ex rel. Hathorne v. Morrow
neutral
2 sentences2012Hathorne v. Morrow, 181 Ill. 315 , 54 N.E. 839 (1899); Crabill v. Bd. of Cnty. 2012Hathorne v. Morrow, 181 Ill. 315 , 54 N.E. 839 (1899); Crabill v. Bd. of Cnty. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Emery v. Ward
green
1 sentence1999In Emery v. Ward, 68 Colo. 373 , 191 P. 99 (1920), the supreme court had held that a deed of trust in the nature of a purchase money mortgage had priority over a judgment lien, notwithstanding that the lien had been recorded prior to the deed of trust. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Vetting v. Kefover
neutral
2 sentences1998See § 15-12-805, C.R.S.1998 (funeral expenses enumerated as a priority claim in cases where the estate’s assets are insufficient to pay all claims in full); § 15-10-201(8), C.R.S.1998 (funeral expenses enumerated as a claim against the estate); Estate of Kefover, 112 Colo. 53 , 145 P.2d 879 (1944). 1998See § 15-12-805, C.R.S.1998 (funeral expenses enumerated as a priority claim in cases where the estate’s assets are insufficient to pay all claims in full); § 15-10-201(8), C.R.S.1998 (funeral expenses enumerated as a claim against the estate); Estate of Kefover, 112 Colo. 53 , 145 P.2d 879 (1944). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Nevius v. Smith
green
2 sentences1963In the entire article the word “appropriation” appears but one time and that is in section 9 where we find: “The priority date of a ground water appropriation shall not be postponed to a time later than its true date of initiation by reason of failure to adjudicate such right in a surface water adjudication.” This provision obviously was intended to apply to decreed priorities to underground water which can properly be granted a priority under the doctrine of appropriation because it is public water, “ * * * since it belongs to the river it belongs to the people of the state by article 16, sec 1963In the entire article the word “appropriation” appears but one time and that is in section 9 where we find: “The priority date of a ground water appropriation shall not be postponed to a time later than its true date of initiation by reason of failure to adjudicate such right in a surface water adjudication.” This provision obviously was intended to apply to decreed priorities to underground water which can properly be granted a priority under the doctrine of appropriation because it is public water, “ * * * since it belongs to the river it belongs to the people of the state by article 16, sec | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.