7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Stewartgreen1 sentence2017People v. Stewart, 55 P.3d 107, 122 (Colo. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Ardolino v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2015See Ardolino, 69 P.3d at 77 . ¶ 53 Finally, we acknowledge Romero's contention that counsel's failure to contemporaneously object to any of these statements "resulted in [this court] being restricted to plain error review" when addressing prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morleygreen1 sentence2015See People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510 , 517 (Colo.1986) ("The relationship of attorney and client can be inferred from the conduct of the parties."). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Afentulgreen2 sentences2015See 773 P.2d at 1083-86 . 2015See 773 P.2d at 1083-86 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cronicgreen2 sentences2015See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 656-57, 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). 2015See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 656-57, 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners v. Ogin
green
1 sentence2024Because it set aside portions of the Board’s order, the division didn’t address Romero’s challenge that the imposed discipline was beyond the Board’s discretion; rather, it remanded “th[e] matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
DeBELLA v. People
green
1 sentence2021In so doing, the court clarified its ruling in the first trial: “Based upon defens e strategy and questioning of the witnesses in the first trial, the Court found that the evidence was relevant and that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudic e.” The court indicated that, at the first trial, it considered whether, un der Frasco v. People , 165 P.3d 701 (Colo. 2007), and DeBella v. Peopl e , 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010), repeated or unfettered access to th e 5 voicemails could prejudice Romero, and limited the admissi on of the voicemails on that basis | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Frasco v. People
green
1 sentence2021In so doing, the court clarified its ruling in the first trial: “Based upon defens e strategy and questioning of the witnesses in the first trial, the Court found that the evidence was relevant and that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudic e.” The court indicated that, at the first trial, it considered whether, un der Frasco v. People , 165 P.3d 701 (Colo. 2007), and DeBella v. Peopl e , 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010), repeated or unfettered access to th e 5 voicemails could prejudice Romero, and limited the admissi on of the voicemails on that basis | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Romero v. City of Fountain
green
2 sentences2016Husband presented a redacted copy of a cashier's check in that amount and represented that his counsel will deposit the check with the court if his motion for stay is granted. ¶ 7 Upon consideration of both parties' pleadings concerning the motion for stay, we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing: (1) whether the factors articulated in Romero v. City of Fountain , 307 P.3d 120 , 122 (Colo. App. 2011), apply to motions seeking to stay a judgment and, in particular, a judgment that contains a nonmonetary component; (2) the precise scope of the stay sought; 1 and (3) the app 2016Husband presented a redacted copy of a cashier's check in that amount and represented that his counsel will deposit the check with the court if his motion for stay is granted. ¶ 7 Upon consideration of both parties' pleadings concerning the motion for stay, we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing: (1) whether the factors articulated in Romero v. City of Fountain , 307 P.3d 120 , 122 (Colo. App. 2011), apply to motions seeking to stay a judgment and, in particular, a judgment that contains a nonmonetary component; (2) the precise scope of the stay sought; 1 and (3) the app | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Romero
green
1 sentence1991We said that while the court’s decision to dismiss criminal counts in Jefferson precluded the state from prosecuting the defendant on those counts, thereby amounting to a final judgment, if the trial court granted Romero’s rule 35(c) motion, “the People may appeal and challenge the merits of the court’s decision as well as the court’s prehearing ruling on the statute’s unconstitutionality.” Id. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.