signature requirement (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

signature requirement in Colorado

7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
George v. Urban Settlement Servicesgreen
ca10 · 2016 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025See id. ¶ 25 Likewise, we are not persuaded that Debbie’s alleged reaction to discovering the holographic will could satisfy the signature requirement.

11
In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2017–2018 4green
colo · 2017 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021These provisions addressed one subject because they " ‘tend [ed] to ... carry out the one general objective’ of limiting housing growth in Colorado," id. at ¶ 10 , 395 P.3d at 321 ( alteration omitted ) ( quoting In re 1999-00 #256 , 12 P.3d at 253 ) , or were "implementing provision [s] ... directly tied to the initiative's central focus," id. at ¶ 13 , 395 P.3d at 322 ( alteration omitted ) ( quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #45 , 234 P.3d 642, 646 ( Colo. 2010 ) ) . ¶32 Here, too, carving out a limited safe harbor tends to carry out and implement the gener

2021That initiative was "not transformed into a multi-subject proposal simply because it specifie [d] mechanisms for carrying out [its] single subject." Id. ¶31 More recently, an initiative addressed the single subject of limiting housing growth where it would have "limit [ed] housing growth to one percent annually in ten jurisdictions until 2021 and prohibit [ed] permits for new residential housing units in the same jurisdictions until 2019 " ; "designate [d] who has authority ... to enact, alter, and repeal regulations on housing growth" ; and "establishe [d] a signature requirement for proposal

11
In the Matter of Submission Clause for 2009-2010 No. 45green
colo · 2010 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021These provisions addressed one subject because they " ‘tend [ed] to ... carry out the one general objective’ of limiting housing growth in Colorado," id. at ¶ 10 , 395 P.3d at 321 ( alteration omitted ) ( quoting In re 1999-00 #256 , 12 P.3d at 253 ) , or were "implementing provision [s] ... directly tied to the initiative's central focus," id. at ¶ 13 , 395 P.3d at 322 ( alteration omitted ) ( quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #45 , 234 P.3d 642, 646 ( Colo. 2010 ) ) . ¶32 Here, too, carving out a limited safe harbor tends to carry out and implement the gener

11
United States v. John E. Vogtgreen
ca8 · 1985 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010See § 16-15-102 (lacking a signature requirement); United States v. Vogt, 760 F.2d 206, 208 (8th Cir.1985) (holding telephonic authorization sufficient); Machi, 536 F.2d at 183-84 (same).

11
United States of America Ex Rel. Andrew Joseph MacHi v. United States Department of Probation and Parolegreen
ca7 · 1976 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010See § 16-15-102 (lacking a signature requirement); United States v. Vogt, 760 F.2d 206, 208 (8th Cir.1985) (holding telephonic authorization sufficient); Machi, 536 F.2d at 183-84 (same).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Silverview at Overlook, LLC v. Overlook at Mt. Crested Butte Ltd. Liability Co. green
coloctapp · 2004
2 sentences

2011Id.

2011Id.

22011–2011
Ashcroft v. Iqbal green
scotus · 2009
1 sentence

2025Alleged facts that are “merely consistent with” a particular theory “stop[] short of the line between possibility and plausibility.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 ). ¶ 26 Second, the amended petition fails to provide any factual allegations from which the court could determine the contents of the will at length, as required by section 15-12-402(3).

12025–2025
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly green
scotus · 2007
1 sentence

2025Alleged facts that are “merely consistent with” a particular theory “stop[] short of the line between possibility and plausibility.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 ). ¶ 26 Second, the amended petition fails to provide any factual allegations from which the court could determine the contents of the will at length, as required by section 15-12-402(3).

12025–2025
Percy v. Fielder green
colo · 2000
2 sentences

2021These provisions addressed one subject because they " ‘tend [ed] to ... carry out the one general objective’ of limiting housing growth in Colorado," id. at ¶ 10 , 395 P.3d at 321 ( alteration omitted ) ( quoting In re 1999-00 #256 , 12 P.3d at 253 ) , or were "implementing provision [s] ... directly tied to the initiative's central focus," id. at ¶ 13 , 395 P.3d at 322 ( alteration omitted ) ( quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #45 , 234 P.3d 642, 646 ( Colo. 2010 ) ) . ¶32 Here, too, carving out a limited safe harbor tends to carry out and implement the gener

2021These provisions addressed one subject because they " ‘tend [ed] to ... carry out the one general objective’ of limiting housing growth in Colorado," id. at ¶ 10 , 395 P.3d at 321 ( alteration omitted ) ( quoting In re 1999-00 #256 , 12 P.3d at 253 ) , or were "implementing provision [s] ... directly tied to the initiative's central focus," id. at ¶ 13 , 395 P.3d at 322 ( alteration omitted ) ( quoting In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009-2010 #45 , 234 P.3d 642, 646 ( Colo. 2010 ) ) . ¶32 Here, too, carving out a limited safe harbor tends to carry out and implement the gener

12021–2021
Howes v. Hayes green
colo · 1998
1 sentence

2021That initiative was "not transformed into a multi-subject proposal simply because it specifie [d] mechanisms for carrying out [its] single subject." Id. ¶31 More recently, an initiative addressed the single subject of limiting housing growth where it would have "limit [ed] housing growth to one percent annually in ten jurisdictions until 2021 and prohibit [ed] permits for new residential housing units in the same jurisdictions until 2019 " ; "designate [d] who has authority ... to enact, alter, and repeal regulations on housing growth" ; and "establishe [d] a signature requirement for proposal

12021–2021
ABRIL MEADOWS HOMEOWNER'S ASS'N v. Castro green
coloctapp · 2009
1 sentence

2015Id.

12015–2015
People v. Grant green
coloctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2002Grant, 30 P.3d at 673 (citing § 2-4-401(17), 1 C.R.S. (1999) ("`Written' or `in writing' includes any representation of words, letters, symbols, or figures; but this provision does not affect any law relating to signatures.")).

2002Grant, 30 P.3d at 673 (citing § 2^4-401(17), 1 C.R.S. (1999) (“ ‘Written’ or ‘in writing’ includes any representation of words, letters, symbols, or figures; but this provision does not affect any law relating to signatures.”)).

12002–2002

Where else courts name it

IL 38 (1941–2025) PA 36 (1982–2026) CA 27 (1969–2025) TX 25 (1948–2026) MO 22 (1982–2023) NY 13 (1928–2025) CT 13 (1983–2022) NC 11 (1940–2025) OH 11 (1991–2025) MD 11 (1914–2022) WA 11 (1973–2025) IN 10 (1913–2015) TN 10 (2000–2026) GA 9 (1907–2023) AL 9 (1985–2003) AZ 9 (1991–2022) AR 8 (1983–2016) MI 8 (1970–2023) ID 7 (1978–2023) CO 7 (2002–2025) MN 7 (1981–2016) IA 7 (1909–2025) KY 7 (1961–2026) WI 6 (1980–2020) UT 4 (2011–2024) OR 4 (1984–2023) VA 4 (2001–2023) MA 4 (1982–2024) AK 3 (1982–2021) LA 3 (1989–2024) SD 3 (2011–2026) NM 3 (1995–2012) WV 3 (1992–2019) FL 3 (1994–2009) OK 3 (1917–2000) NJ 2 (2003–2020) MT 2 (1984–2002) KS 2 (2003–2024) MS 2 (2017–2018) NE 2 (1995–1997)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check