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 1925–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Henderson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026See Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 282 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (noting that “a simple-error rule” means “all trial-court mistakes affecting substantial rights can be corrected on appeal”). | 1 | 1 |
Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Packardgreen1 sentence2003See Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Packard, 642 P.2d 57, 58 (Colo.App.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United Presbyterian Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences1987In United Presbyterian Ass’n v. Board of County Commissioners, 167 Colo. 485 , 448 P.2d 967 (1968), a non-profit owner of a senior citizens’ residential home sought an exemption from ad valorem taxes. 1987In United Presbyterian Ass’n v. Board of County Commissioners, 167 Colo. 485 , 448 P.2d 967 (1968), a non-profit owner of a senior citizens’ residential home sought an exemption from ad valorem taxes. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Loding
green
1 sentence2018But the simple violation of Rule 205.7 “is not the matter before us in this appeal.” Id. ¶ 94 I would therefore affirm the postconviction court’s order denying defendant’s request for a hearing because his Crim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
cluster 424823
green
1 sentence1992Therefore, when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s determination of “good reason,” the standard of review regarding which factors the trial court has used is akin to review by “the standard of simple error used in reviewing decisions of questions of law.” Coyne-Delaney Co. v. Capital Development Board, supra. We review the trial court’s order accordingly. 2. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Plue v. People
neutral
2 sentences1925We have decided adversely to defendants’ contention in Simmons v. People, 70 Colo. 262 , 199 Pac. 416 ; Plue v. People, 69 Colo. 250 , 193 Pac. 496 . 1925We have decided adversely to defendants’ contention in Simmons v. People, 70 Colo. 262 , 199 Pac. 416 ; Plue v. People, 69 Colo. 250 , 193 Pac. 496 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Simmons v. People
neutral
2 sentences1925We have decided adversely to defendants’ contention in Simmons v. People, 70 Colo. 262 , 199 Pac. 416 ; Plue v. People, 69 Colo. 250 , 193 Pac. 496 . 1925We have decided adversely to defendants’ contention in Simmons v. People, 70 Colo. 262 , 199 Pac. 416 ; Plue v. People, 69 Colo. 250 , 193 Pac. 496 . | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.