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 1984–2026 5 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. Wiedemergreen2 sentences2026See Wiedemer, 852 P.2d at 441 . 5 III. 2025See Wiedemer, 852 P.2d at 441 (a defendant must account for the entire period up to the filing of the untimely claim). ¶ 15 Although Moore also alleged in his motion that his mental health affected his ability to timely file Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Tarco, Inc. v. Conifer Metropolitan Districtgreen1 sentence2025Dist., 2013 COA 60, ¶ 17 (noting that a party may raise an affirmative defense for the first time in summary judgment 23 pleadings if (1) the opposing party does not object to the untimely defense, and (2) the opposing party is not prejudiced by the delay in raising it). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Caligreen1 sentence2025See People v. Cali, 2020 CO 20, ¶ 34 (appellate courts broadly construe pro se motions). ¶4 The district court construed his motion as a Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Erlinger v. United States
green
1 sentence2026People v. Stone, (Colo. App. No. 21CA1351, May 25, 2023) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)). 1 ¶4 In 2025, Stone filed the motion that is the subject of this appeal, titled “Motion to Dismiss Habitual Counts.” Stone argues, as now relevant, that (1) four of the seven habitual criminal counts should have been presented as one to the jury because they arose from one continuous criminal episode and (2) the district court should consider the merits of the untimely claim in light of the recent announcement of Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Yates v. People
green
1 sentence2025Reading the pro se motion broadly, as we must, we perceive it to contend that (1) his sentence was unconstitutionally 1 disproportionate in light of Wells-Yates v. People, 2019 CO 90M ; and (2) the district court should consider the merits of this untimely claim because Wells-Yates announced a new rule of constitutional law that applied retroactively. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Town of Carbondale v. GSS PROPERTIES, LLC
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 679-80 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Ackmann v. Merchants Mortgage & Trust Corp.
green
1 sentence1984Id. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.