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 1903–2000 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mercer v. Mercer
neutral
2 sentences1903In Mercer v. Mercer, supra, at bottom of page 247, this court said: “This repealing clause (Law of 1893) is broad and sweeping, repeals all other acts on the subject of divorce and alimony, destroys the right to sue out a writ of error within three years and by necessary intendment deprives this court of jurisdiction to review decrees in divorce suits.” From the above language it would appear that the want of jurisdiction is limited to the “review of decrees .in divorce suits.” The court in the above case undoubtedly had jurisdiction of the parties, as they had appeared, appellant insisting up 1903In Mercer v. Mercer, supra, at bottom of page 247, this court said: “This repealing clause (Law of 1893) is broad and sweeping, repeals all other acts on the subject of divorce and alimony, destroys the right to sue out a writ of error within three years and by necessary intendment deprives this court of jurisdiction to review decrees in divorce suits.” From the above language it would appear that the want of jurisdiction is limited to the “review of decrees .in divorce suits.” The court in the above case undoubtedly had jurisdiction of the parties, as they had appeared, appellant insisting up | 2 | 1903–1903 |
In Re Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Roy Romer on House Bill 91S-1005
green
1 sentence2000"Moreover, a repealing clause contained in the legislation provided for its automatic repeal the following year, so that there was no possibility of any other geographical areas in Colorado to which it would apply." Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In Re Senate Bill No. 95 of the Forty-Third General Assembly
green
2 sentences1991Moreover, a repealing clause contained in the legislation provided for its automatic repeal the following year, so that there was no possibility "of any other geographical areas in Colorado to which it would apply." 146 Colo. at 238 , 361 P.2d at 353 . 1991Moreover, a repealing clause contained in the legislation provided for its automatic repeal the following year, so that there was no possibility "of any other geographical areas in Colorado to which it would apply." 146 Colo. at 238 , 361 P.2d at 353 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Johnson v. Dodrill
neutral
1 sentence1976Petitioners argue that, since repeal was not mentioned in the 1953 Colorado Revised Statutes, both statutes have remained in full force and effect, and they cite Johnson v. Dodrill, 265 F. Supp. 243 , (D. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
In re Breene
green
1 sentence1952It is here contended that the repealing clause in said chapter 157 is much broader than the title of the act, and, therefore, that the same is unconstitutional as violative of section 21, Article Y of the Colorado Constitution, which provides, “No bill, except general appropriation bills, shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; but if any subject shall be embraced in any act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed.” Our court, in an early opinion, In re Bre | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Town of Sugar v. Board of Commissioners
green
1 sentence1919Sugar City v. Commissioners, 57 Colo. 432 , 140 Pac. 800 . | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.