7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burman v. Richmond Homes Ltd.green2 sentences2012See Burman v. Richmond Homes Ltd., 821 P.2d 913, 919 (Colo.App.1991) ("the receipt of inquiry notice charges a party with notice of all facts that a reasonably diligent inquiry would have disclosed"). 2001See Burman v. Richmond Homes Ltd., 821 P.2d 913, 919 (Colo.App.1991)("the receipt of inquiry notice charges a party with notice of all facts that a reasonably diligent inquiry would have disclosed"). | 2 | 2 |
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Giffordgreen2 sentences1996Colburn v. Gilcrest, 60 Colo. 92, 94 , 151 P. 909, 910 (1915). 1991Colburn v. Gilcrest, 55 Colo. 92, 94 , 151 P. 909, 910 (1915). | 2 | 2 |
Monaghan Farms, Inc. v. City & County of Denver Ex Rel. Board of Water Commissionersgreen2 sentences1996Monaghan Farms, 807 P.2d at 15 . 1992See Monaghan Farms, 807 P.2d at 15 (“receipt of inquiry notice charges a party with notice of all the facts that a reasonably diligent inquiry would have disclosed”); cf. Vail Valley, 751 P.2d at 73 (statement of claim interpreted as ordinary person would). | 1 | 3 |
Adelson v. Board of County Commissionersgreen1 sentence2009See Adelson v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 875 P.2d 1387, 1389 (Colo.App.1993) (imputation of inquiry' notice requires sufficient facts to attract attention of interested persons and to prompt a reasonable person to inquire further). | 1 | 1 |
City & County of Denver ex rel. Board of Water Commissioners v. Vail Valley Consolidated Water Districtgreen1 sentence1992See Monaghan Farms, 807 P.2d at 15 (“receipt of inquiry notice charges a party with notice of all the facts that a reasonably diligent inquiry would have disclosed”); cf. Vail Valley, 751 P.2d at 73 (statement of claim interpreted as ordinary person would). | 1 | 1 |
Cottonwood Hill, Inc. v. Ansaygreen1 sentence1991Monaghan Farms, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 807 P.2d 9 (Colo.1991); see Cottonwood Hill, Inc. v. Ansay, 782 P.2d 1207 (Colo.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Colburn v. Gilcrest
green
1 sentence1996Colburn v. Gilcrest, 60 Colo. 92, 94 , 151 P. 909, 910 (1915). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.