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 1975–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rome v. HEI Res., Inc.green2 sentences2021See Rome v. HEI Res., Inc., 2014 COA 160 , ¶ 21, 411 P.3d 851 , 856–57 (collecting cases). 2021See Rome v. HEI Res., Inc. , 2014 COA 160 , ¶ 21 , 411 P.3d 851, 856-57 ( collecting cases ) . | 2 | 2 |
Toothman v. Freeborn & Petersgreen2 sentences2020Under the Howey test, “an ‘investment contract’ is: (1) a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests his or her money (2) in a common enterprise and (3) is led to expect profits derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.” Toothman, 80 P.3d at 811 (citing People v. Milne, 690 P.2d 829, 833 (Colo. 1984)). 12 ¶ 21 This definition of investment contract “embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profi 2014This test is intended to "embod[y] a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits." Howey, 328 U.S. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 ; see also Lowery, 192 Colo. at 130 , 556 P.2d at 1205 . ¶ 21 In both federal and Colorado cases decided after Howey , the word "solely" in the third prong of the Howey test has not been construed literally; the "critical inquiry is instead whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably sig | 1 | 2 |
People v. Milnegreen2 sentences2020Under the Howey test, “an ‘investment contract’ is: (1) a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests his or her money (2) in a common enterprise and (3) is led to expect profits derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.” Toothman, 80 P.3d at 811 (citing People v. Milne, 690 P.2d 829, 833 (Colo. 1984)). 12 ¶ 21 This definition of investment contract “embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profi 2020Under the Howey test, “an ‘investment contract’ is: (1) a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests his or her money (2) in a common enterprise and (3) is led to expect profits derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.” Toothman, 80 P.3d at 811 (citing People v. Milne, 690 P.2d 829, 833 (Colo. 1984)). 12 ¶ 21 This definition of investment contract “embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profi | 1 | 1 |
Lowery v. Ford Hill Investment Co.green2 sentences2014This test is intended to "embod[y] a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits." Howey, 328 U.S. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 ; see also Lowery, 192 Colo. at 130 , 556 P.2d at 1205 . ¶ 21 In both federal and Colorado cases decided after Howey , the word "solely" in the third prong of the Howey test has not been construed literally; the "critical inquiry is instead whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably sig 2014This test is intended to "embod[y] a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits." Howey, 328 U.S. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 ; see also Lowery, 192 Colo. at 130 , 556 P.2d at 1205 . ¶ 21 In both federal and Colorado cases decided after Howey , the word "solely" in the third prong of the Howey test has not been construed literally; the "critical inquiry is instead whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably sig | 1 | 1 |
City and County of Denver v. Sweetgreen2 sentences2008Our past cases do not adopt a uniform standard for what constitutes a lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose, perhaps because of the difficulty of capturing the permissible range of local and municipal projects with a static test. 2 Compare, eg., McNichols v. City & County of Denver, 101 Colo. 316, 324 , 74 P.2d 99, 103 (1987) ("'The test is whether the power, if exercised, will promote the general objects and purposes of the municipality."), with City & County of Denver v. Sweet, 138 Colo. 41, 49 , 329 P.2d 441, 445 (1958) ("Whether a particular busi ness activity is a matter of municip 2008Our past cases do not adopt a uniform standard for what constitutes a lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose, perhaps because of the difficulty of capturing the permissible range of local and municipal projects with a static test. 2 Compare, eg., McNichols v. City & County of Denver, 101 Colo. 316, 324 , 74 P.2d 99, 103 (1987) ("'The test is whether the power, if exercised, will promote the general objects and purposes of the municipality."), with City & County of Denver v. Sweet, 138 Colo. 41, 49 , 329 P.2d 441, 445 (1958) ("Whether a particular busi ness activity is a matter of municip | 1 | 1 |
McNichols v. City of Denvergreen2 sentences2008Our past cases do not adopt a uniform standard for what constitutes a lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose, perhaps because of the difficulty of capturing the permissible range of local and municipal projects with a static test. 2 Compare, eg., McNichols v. City & County of Denver, 101 Colo. 316, 324 , 74 P.2d 99, 103 (1987) ("'The test is whether the power, if exercised, will promote the general objects and purposes of the municipality."), with City & County of Denver v. Sweet, 138 Colo. 41, 49 , 329 P.2d 441, 445 (1958) ("Whether a particular busi ness activity is a matter of municip 2008Our past cases do not adopt a uniform standard for what constitutes a lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose, perhaps because of the difficulty of capturing the permissible range of local and municipal projects with a static test. 2 Compare, eg., McNichols v. City & County of Denver, 101 Colo. 316, 324 , 74 P.2d 99, 103 (1987) ("'The test is whether the power, if exercised, will promote the general objects and purposes of the municipality."), with City & County of Denver v. Sweet, 138 Colo. 41, 49 , 329 P.2d 441, 445 (1958) ("Whether a particular busi ness activity is a matter of municip | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.
green
2 sentences2021This test was intended to embody "a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits." Id. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 . ¶29 Notably, case law from both federal and Colorado state courts have not construed the word "solely" in the third prong of the Howey test literally. 2021This test was intended to embody "a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits." Id. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 . ¶29 Notably, case law from both federal and Colorado state courts have not construed the word "solely" in the third prong of the Howey test literally. | 6 | 1975–2021 |
Joseph v. Viatica Management, LLC
green
1 sentence2014This test is intended to "embod[y] a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits." Howey, 328 U.S. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 ; see also Lowery, 192 Colo. at 130 , 556 P.2d at 1205 . ¶ 21 In both federal and Colorado cases decided after Howey , the word "solely" in the third prong of the Howey test has not been construed literally; the "critical inquiry is instead whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably sig | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Jim Long v. Shultz Cattle Company, Incorporated, an Oklahoma Corporation, and William B. Shultz
green
1 sentence2014This test is intended to "embod[y] a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits." Howey, 328 U.S. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 ; see also Lowery, 192 Colo. at 130 , 556 P.2d at 1205 . ¶ 21 In both federal and Colorado cases decided after Howey , the word "solely" in the third prong of the Howey test has not been construed literally; the "critical inquiry is instead whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably sig | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Tcherepnin v. Knight
green
2 sentences1975"Form should be disregarded for substance and the emphasis should be on economic reality." Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332 , 88 S.Ct. 548 , 19 L.Ed.2d 564 . 1975"Form should be disregarded for substance and the emphasis should be on economic reality." Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332 , 88 S.Ct. 548 , 19 L.Ed.2d 564 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.