54 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1888–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pomeroy v. Waitkusgreen2 sentences1995The doctrine of res judicata provides “that an existing judgment is conclusive of the rights of the parties in any subsequent suit on the same claim.” Pomeroy v. Waitkus, 183 Colo. 344, 350 , 517 P.2d 396, 399 (1973). 1995The doctrine of res judicata provides “that an existing judgment is conclusive of the rights of the parties in any subsequent suit on the same claim.” Pomeroy v. Waitkus, 183 Colo. 344, 350 , 517 P.2d 396, 399 (1973). | 6 | 11 |
City & County of Denver v. Block 173 Associatesgreen2 sentences2000See City & County of Denver v. Block 173 Associates, supra . 2000See City & County of Denver v. Block 173 Associates, supra. In doing so, we reject the estate's argument, in reliance upon § 15-12-107, C.R.S. 1999, that the Larges were not barred from raising their claims to the property, as com pensation for services and as devisees under the will, in the same proceeding. | 2 | 5 |
Nevada v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004This court's decision in Bell as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent has made clear that once the water court enters a decree, the doctrine of res judicata bars the United States from reopening a reserved water rights adjudication even where prior claims have not been adjudicated or the United States erroneously omitted certain claims. 724 P.2d at 643 ; Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 130-31 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 , 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). 2004This court's decision in Bell as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent has made clear that once the water court enters a decree, the doctrine of res judicata bars the United States from reopening a reserved water rights adjudication even where prior claims have not been adjudicated or the United States erroneously omitted certain claims. 724 P.2d at 643 ; Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 130-31 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 , 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). | 1 | 3 |
Lobato v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2018Ranch Owner argues that 47 the trial court erroneously refused to apply res judicata to landowners under these circumstances, notwithstanding the supreme court’s holding that “individuals who should have been personally named and served, and were not, are not barred from presently bringing such claims.” Lobato II, 70 P.3d at 1158 . 2004See Lobato v. Taylor, supra. Thus, we conclude the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs federal constitutional claims under the doctrine of res judica-ta. | 1 | 2 |
First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. v. Central Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2016Uncertainty is not implicit in this finding. ¶ 71 Their reliance on First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. v. Central Bank & Trust Co. of Denver , 937 P.2d 855, 858 (Colo. App. 1996) (declining to “fragment the res judicata test into separate issues so that failure to emphasize one part precludes argument on the other on appeal”), is unpersuasive. 2016There, the “plaintiff recognized both the jurisdictional and discretionary elements of a res judicata analysis,” yet the plaintiff did not address the discretion issue, concluding that it “need not be reached.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
City of Westminster v. Churchgreen2 sentences1989We disagree. *549 In City of Westminster v. Church, 167 Colo. 1, 9 , 445 P.2d 52, 55 (1968), we noted that “[r]es judicata constitutes an absolute bar only when there is in both the prior and subsequent suits identity of subject matter, identity of the cause of action, identity of parties to the action, and identity of capacity in the persons for which or against whom the claim is made.” The “same claim or cause of action” requirement is bounded by the injury for which relief is demanded, and not by the legal theory on which the person asserting the claim relies. 1989We disagree. *549 In City of Westminster v. Church, 167 Colo. 1, 9 , 445 P.2d 52, 55 (1968), we noted that “[r]es judicata constitutes an absolute bar only when there is in both the prior and subsequent suits identity of subject matter, identity of the cause of action, identity of parties to the action, and identity of capacity in the persons for which or against whom the claim is made.” The “same claim or cause of action” requirement is bounded by the injury for which relief is demanded, and not by the legal theory on which the person asserting the claim relies. | 1 | 2 |
Weibert v. Rothe Bros., Inc.green2 sentences1988The doctrine of res judicata, which renders an existing judgment conclusive of the rights of the parties in any subsequent action on the same claim, e.g., Pomeroy v. Waitkus, 183 Colo. 344, 349-50 , 517 P.2d 396, 399 (1974), is applicable only when there exists “identity of subject matter, cause of action, parties to the action, and capacity in the persons for which or against whom the claim is made.” Weibert, 200 Colo. at 318 , 618 P.2d at 1372 . 1988The doctrine of res judicata, which renders an existing judgment conclusive of the rights of the parties in any subsequent action on the same claim, e.g., Pomeroy v. Waitkus, 183 Colo. 344, 349-50 , 517 P.2d 396, 399 (1974), is applicable only when there exists “identity of subject matter, cause of action, parties to the action, and capacity in the persons for which or against whom the claim is made.” Weibert, 200 Colo. at 318 , 618 P.2d at 1372 . | 1 | 2 |
Harriman v. Cabela's Incgreen1 sentence2025See id. at ¶¶ 19- 24. ¶ 19 Finally, although mother may have prevailed in Zunker, we observe that she has not even attempted to justify her numerous other pro se filings involving matters outside the scope of that appeal, which were also cited by the magistrate as justifying an order enjoining her from proceeding pro se. | 1 | 1 |
Hardesty v. Pinogreen2 sentences2018See Hardesty, 222 P.3d at 340 (“[B]oth an appellate holding and its necessary rationale become law of the case controlling future proceedings.”). ¶ 90 As to Ranch Owner’s second argument, we conclude that the application of the res judicata bar to landowners whose co-owner was personally served in the 1960 Torrens actions is also foreclosed by the law of the case under Lobato II. 2018See Hardesty, 222 P.3d at 340 (“[B]oth an appellate holding and its necessary rationale become law of the case controlling future proceedings.”). ¶ 90 As to Ranch Owner’s second argument, we conclude that the application of the res judicata bar to landowners whose co-owner was personally served in the 1960 Torrens actions is also foreclosed by the law of the case under Lobato II. | 1 | 1 |
SOV v. People in Interest of MCgreen1 sentence2007See S.O.V. v. People in Interest of M.C., 914 P.2d 355 (Colo.1996) (prior court ruling binding on parties through doctrine of res judicata). | 1 | 1 |
Spradling v. City of Tulsagreen1 sentence2000See Spradling v. City of Tulsa, 198 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Orselet v. DeMatteogreen2 sentences1997See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988)(barring district court action for injuries sustained in automobile accident based on small claims court's judgment awarding cost of repair of automobile); Mells v. Billops, 482 A.2d 759 (Del.Super.1984)(subsequent claim was precluded where motorcyclist brought action for property damage in justice of peace court and later brought civil action in superior court for personal injuries, even though damages for personal injuries were outside the justice of the peace's jurisdiction); Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D 1997See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988)(barring district court action for injuries sustained in automobile accident based on small claims court's judgment awarding cost of repair of automobile); Mells v. Billops, 482 A.2d 759 (Del.Super.1984)(subsequent claim was precluded where motorcyclist brought action for property damage in justice of peace court and later brought civil action in superior court for personal injuries, even though damages for personal injuries were outside the justice of the peace's jurisdiction); Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D | 1 | 1 |
| Carl Kale v. Combined Insurance Company of Americagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rael v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Heartygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In RE GREEN RIVER ADJUDICATION v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Fossumgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Norby v. City of Bouldergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ruth v. Department of Highwaysgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. California
green
2 sentences2004This court's decision in Bell as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent has made clear that once the water court enters a decree, the doctrine of res judicata bars the United States from reopening a reserved water rights adjudication even where prior claims have not been adjudicated or the United States erroneously omitted certain claims. 724 P.2d at 643 ; Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 130-31 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 , 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). 2004This court's decision in Bell as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent has made clear that once the water court enters a decree, the doctrine of res judicata bars the United States from reopening a reserved water rights adjudication even where prior claims have not been adjudicated or the United States erroneously omitted certain claims. 724 P.2d at 643 ; Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 130-31 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 , 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). | 3 | 1986–2004 |
ATCIHSON v. City of Englewood
green
2 sentences2004Argus Real Estate next contends its suit fell within the exception to the doctrine of res judicata stated in Atchison v. City of Englewood, 180 Colo. 407 , 506 P.2d 140 (1973), and thus, the court erred in dismissing its claims. 2004Argus Real Estate next contends its suit fell within the exception to the doctrine of res judicata stated in Atchison v. City of Englewood, 180 Colo. 407 , 506 P.2d 140 (1973), and thus, the court erred in dismissing its claims. | 2 | 1977–2004 |
United States v. Bell
green
2 sentences2004This court's decision in Bell as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent has made clear that onee the water court enters a decree, the doctrine of res judicata bars the United States from reopening a reserved water rights adjudication even where prior claims have not been adjudicated or the United States erroneously omitted certain claims. 724 P.2d at 648 ; Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 180-81 , 108 S.Ct. 2906 , 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). 2004This court's decision in Bell as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent has made clear that once the water court enters a decree, the doctrine of res judicata bars the United States from reopening a reserved water rights adjudication even where prior claims have not been adjudicated or the United States erroneously omitted certain claims. 724 P.2d at 643 ; Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 130-31 , 103 S.Ct. 2906 , 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Jefferson County School District No. R-1 v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1989Application of the principle adopted in Miller v. Lunnon, 703 P.2d 640 (Colo.App.1985) (pending appeal does not preclude application of doctrine of res judicata) and Jefferson County School District No. R-1 v. Industrial Commission, 698 P.2d 1350 (Colo.App.1984) (pending appeal of prior administrative ruling does not prevent application of doctrine of collateral estoppel in subsequent administrative proceedings) is dispositive of this contention. 1985Although the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are applicable in certain circumstances to administrative proceedings, see Umberfield v. School District No. 11, 185 Colo. 165 , 522 P.2d 730 (1974); Jefferson County School District No. R-l v. Industrial Commission, 698 P.2d 1350 (Colo.App.1984), these doctrines can have no applicability to an administrative proceeding in which the agency lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. | 2 | 1985–1989 |
Umberfield v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11, ETC.
green
2 sentences1989The doctrine of res judicata may be applied to an administrative proceeding in a proper case, Umberfield v. School District No. 11, 185 Colo. 165 , 522 P.2d 730 (1974), but when substantial changes in facts or circumstances occur subsequent to the earlier hearing, the doctrine is not applicable. 1989The doctrine of res judicata may be applied to an administrative proceeding in a proper case, Umberfield v. School District No. 11, 185 Colo. 165 , 522 P.2d 730 (1974), but when substantial changes in facts or circumstances occur subsequent to the earlier hearing, the doctrine is not applicable. | 2 | 1985–1989 |
United States v. Beggerly
green
2 sentences2008Independent actions are not governed by the strict time limits of Rule 60(b), and they also allow departure from "rigid adherence to the doctrine of res judicata." United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 46 , 118 S.Ct. 1862 , 141 LEd.2d 32 (1998). 2008Independent actions are not governed by the strict time limits of Rule 60(b), and they also allow departure from "rigid adherence to the doctrine of res judicata." United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 46 , 118 S.Ct. 1862 , 141 LEd.2d 32 (1998). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Argus Real Estate, Inc. v. E-470 Public Highway Authority
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 219 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Watt v. Watt
green
1 sentence2005Pursuant to Wyoming state law, a parent seeking a modification of custody has the burden of establishing that “a material and substantial change in circumstances [has] occurred, following the entry of the initial divorce decree, which outweigh[s] societal interest in supporting the doctrine of res judicata.” Id. at 613 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Henry v. Mrosak
green
1 sentence2004This court's decision in Bell as well as U.S. Supreme Court precedent has made clear that onee the water court enters a decree, the doctrine of res judicata bars the United States from reopening a reserved water rights adjudication even where prior claims have not been adjudicated or the United States erroneously omitted certain claims. 724 P.2d at 648 ; Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 180-81 , 108 S.Ct. 2906 , 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
City of Englewood v. Weist
green
1 sentence2000The special assessment issue in City of Englewood v. Weist, 184 Colo. 825 , 520 P.2d 120 (1974) arose in a res judicata framework. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Mells v. Billops
green
2 sentences1997See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988)(barring district court action for injuries sustained in automobile accident based on small claims court's judgment awarding cost of repair of automobile); Mells v. Billops, 482 A.2d 759 (Del.Super.1984)(subsequent claim was precluded where motorcyclist brought action for property damage in justice of peace court and later brought civil action in superior court for personal injuries, even though damages for personal injuries were outside the justice of the peace's jurisdiction); Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D 1997See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988)(barring district court action for injuries sustained in automobile accident based on small claims court’s judgment awarding cost of repair of automobile); Mells v. Billops, 482 A.2d 759 (Del.Super.l984)(subsequent claim was precluded where motorcyclist brought action for property damage in justice of peace court and later brought civil action in superior court for personal injuries, even though damages for personal injuries were outside the justice of the peace’s jurisdiction); Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Omara v. Polise
green
2 sentences1997No. 9330, December 13, 1995)(1995WL762915)(subsequent civil claims previously raised in small claims court are subject to res judicata; however, present case presents claims arising from different transactions); Doherty v. McMillen, 805 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.1991)(holding that small claims court judgments have res judicata effect based on interpretation of legislative enactments); Omara v. Polise, 163 Misc.2d 989 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 403 (Sup.1995)(prior small claims action barred claims in civil court arising in tenant/landlord dispute); Phillips v. Phillips, 46 N.C.App. 558 , 265 S.E.2d 441 (1980)(co 1997No. 9330, December 13, 1995)(1995WL762915)(subsequent civil claims previously raised in small claims court are subject to res judicata; however, present case presents claims arising from different transactions); Doherty v. McMillen, 805 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.1991)(holding that small claims court judgments have res judicata effect based on interpretation of legislative enactments); Omara v. Polise, 163 Misc.2d 989 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 403 (Sup.1995)(prior small claims action barred claims in civil court arising in tenant/landlord dispute); Phillips v. Phillips, 46 N.C.App. 558 , 265 S.E.2d 441 (1980)(co | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Doherty v. McMillen
green
2 sentences1997No. 9330, December 13, 1995)(1995WL762915)(subsequent civil claims previously raised in small claims court are subject to res judicata; however, present case presents claims arising from different transactions); Doherty v. McMillen, 805 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.1991)(holding that small claims court judgments have res judicata effect based on interpretation of legislative enactments); Omara v. Polise, 163 Misc.2d 989 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 403 (Sup.1995)(prior small claims action barred claims in civil court arising in tenant/landlord dispute); Phillips v. Phillips, 46 N.C.App. 558 , 265 S.E.2d 441 (1980)(co 1997No. 9330, December 13, 1995)(1995WL762915)(subsequent civil claims previously raised in small claims court are subject to res judicata; however, present ease presents claims arising from different transactions); Doherty v. McMillen, 805 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.l991)(holding that small claims court judgments have res judicata effect based on interpretation of legislative enactments); Omara v. Polise, 163 Misc.2d 989 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 403 (Sup.l995)(prior small claims action barred claims in civil court arising in tenant/landlord dispute); Phillips v. Phillips, 46 N.C.App. 558 , 265 S.E.2d 441 (1980)(co | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Phillips v. Phillips green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Egbert v. Curtis
green
2 sentences1997See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988)(barring district court action for injuries sustained in automobile accident based on small claims court's judgment awarding cost of repair of automobile); Mells v. Billops, 482 A.2d 759 (Del.Super.1984)(subsequent claim was precluded where motorcyclist brought action for property damage in justice of peace court and later brought civil action in superior court for personal injuries, even though damages for personal injuries were outside the justice of the peace's jurisdiction); Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D 1997See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988)(barring district court action for injuries sustained in automobile accident based on small claims court’s judgment awarding cost of repair of automobile); Mells v. Billops, 482 A.2d 759 (Del.Super.l984)(subsequent claim was precluded where motorcyclist brought action for property damage in justice of peace court and later brought civil action in superior court for personal injuries, even though damages for personal injuries were outside the justice of the peace’s jurisdiction); Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Williams v. Christiansen
green
2 sentences1997See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988)(barring district court action for injuries sustained in automobile accident based on small claims court's judgment awarding cost of repair of automobile); Mells v. Billops, 482 A.2d 759 (Del.Super.1984)(subsequent claim was precluded where motorcyclist brought action for property damage in justice of peace court and later brought civil action in superior court for personal injuries, even though damages for personal injuries were outside the justice of the peace's jurisdiction); Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D 1997See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988)(barring district court action for injuries sustained in automobile accident based on small claims court's judgment awarding cost of repair of automobile); Mells v. Billops, 482 A.2d 759 (Del.Super.1984)(subsequent claim was precluded where motorcyclist brought action for property damage in justice of peace court and later brought civil action in superior court for personal injuries, even though damages for personal injuries were outside the justice of the peace's jurisdiction); Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Bagley v. Hughes A. Bagley, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988)(barring district court action for injuries sustained in automobile accident based on small claims court's judgment awarding cost of repair of automobile); Mells v. Billops, 482 A.2d 759 (Del.Super.1984)(subsequent claim was precluded where motorcyclist brought action for property damage in justice of peace court and later brought civil action in superior court for personal injuries, even though damages for personal injuries were outside the justice of the peace's jurisdiction); Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D 1997See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542 , 539 A.2d 95 (1988)(barring district court action for injuries sustained in automobile accident based on small claims court’s judgment awarding cost of repair of automobile); Mells v. Billops, 482 A.2d 759 (Del.Super.l984)(subsequent claim was precluded where motorcyclist brought action for property damage in justice of peace court and later brought civil action in superior court for personal injuries, even though damages for personal injuries were outside the justice of the peace’s jurisdiction); Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
City & County of Denver Ex Rel. Board of Water Commissioners v. Consolidated Ditches Co. of District No. 2
green
2 sentences1997City & County of Denver v. Consolidated Ditches Co., 807 P.2d 23 (Colo.1991). 1997City & County of Denver v. Consolidated Ditches Co., 807 P.2d 23 (Colo.1991). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Sines v. Ball
neutral
2 sentences1997No. 9330, December 13, 1995)(1995WL762915)(subsequent civil claims previously raised in small claims court are subject to res judicata; however, present case presents claims arising from different transactions); Doherty v. McMillen, 805 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.1991)(holding that small claims court judgments have res judicata effect based on interpretation of legislative enactments); Omara v. Polise, 163 Misc.2d 989 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 403 (Sup.1995)(prior small claims action barred claims in civil court arising in tenant/landlord dispute); Phillips v. Phillips, 46 N.C.App. 558 , 265 S.E.2d 441 (1980)(co 1997No. 9330, December 13, 1995)(1995WL762915)(subsequent civil claims previously raised in small claims court are subject to res judicata; however, present case presents claims arising from different transactions); Doherty v. McMillen, 805 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.1991)(holding that small claims court judgments have res judicata effect based on interpretation of legislative enactments); Omara v. Polise, 163 Misc.2d 989 , 625 N.Y.S.2d 403 (Sup.1995)(prior small claims action barred claims in civil court arising in tenant/landlord dispute); Phillips v. Phillips, 46 N.C.App. 558 , 265 S.E.2d 441 (1980)(co | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Frank W. Shaver v. F.W. Woolworth Co. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corporation v. James I. Posey green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Batterman v. Wells Fargo Ag Credit Corp. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| McNeece v. McNeece green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Peercy v. Peercy green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Bentley v. Valco, Inc. green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Miller v. Lunnon green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| John F. Lombard v. The Board of Education of the City of New York, and John A. Murphy,defendants-Appellees green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Murphy v. Northern Colorado Grain Co. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Atchison v. City of Englewood green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Atchison v. City of Englewood green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Denver Plastics, Inc. v. Snyder green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Trujillo v. People neutral | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Boyd v. Van Cleave green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Craddock v. Palmer green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| United States v. Oppenheimer green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Sealfon v. United States green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Joseph Aguilar Gaitan and Dolores Marie Gaitan v. United States green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Ballas v. Cladis green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Semet-Solvay Division, Allied Chemical Corp. v. Miller green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.