6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. J.L.green1 sentence2026Dist. v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc., 2019 CO 51, ¶ 18 (noting that trial courts make factual findings while appellate courts pronounce law); see also People in Interest of J.L., 121 P.3d 315, 318 (Colo. App. 2005) (“[W]e cannot make factual findings of our own.”). ¶ 22 Because the district court didn’t conduct the choice-of-law analysis, it didn’t make any factual findings related to sections 6 and 188 of the Restatement. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Balansongreen1 sentence2026See Balanson, 25 P.3d at 38 (When a trial court erred by classifying certain property as marital, the error wasn’t harmless despite an alternative finding that the division would remain the same even if the property was separate; the court didn’t make sufficient findings to explain how the separate property “as merely an economic circumstance would result in a division of marital 13 property that [was] identical to one in which such property [was] considered to be marital property.”). ¶ 24 Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the permanent orders concerning property division, and we remand t | 1 | 1 |
ITT Specialty Risk Services v. Avis Rent a Car Systems, Inc.green1 sentence2026See ITT Specialty Risk Servs. v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 985 P.2d 43, 47 (Colo. App. 1998); see also Wood Bros. | 1 | 1 |
Carousel Farms Metro. Dist. v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc.green1 sentence2026Dist. v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc., 2019 CO 51, ¶ 18 (noting that trial courts make factual findings while appellate courts pronounce law); see also People in Interest of J.L., 121 P.3d 315, 318 (Colo. App. 2005) (“[W]e cannot make factual findings of our own.”). ¶ 22 Because the district court didn’t conduct the choice-of-law analysis, it didn’t make any factual findings related to sections 6 and 188 of the Restatement. | 1 | 1 |
Swenson v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.green1 sentence2013Swenson v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 415 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1105 (S.D.Cal.2006). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 12698green1 sentence2011According to the choice of law clause intertwined with the forum selection clause in the Joint Venture Agreements, the agreements are to be construed exclusively in accordance with the laws of Texas. 1 See Haynsworth v. The Corporation, 121 F.3d 956, 967 (5th Cir. 1997) ("Choice of law is often one of the reasons for obtaining a forum selection clause."). | 1 | 1 |
Dairyland Insurance v. Douthatgreen2 sentences2009Co. v. Douthat, 248 Va. 627 , 449 S.E.2d 799, 801 (1994). 2009Co. v. Douthat, 248 Va. 627 , 449 S.E.2d 799, 801 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Hansen v. GAB Business Services, Inc.green1 sentence1997See Hansen v. GAB Business Services, Inc., 876 P.2d 112 (Colo.App.1994) (contractual choice of law provisions generally enforceable). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
AE, INC. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
green
1 sentence2009In AE, Inc., 168 P.3d at 511 , the Colorado Supreme Court discerned “no convincing reason to engage in a different choice of law analysis to determine the law applicable to a claim for prejudgment interest,” and held that “the same law that governs the underlying cause of action in a tort case also governs the award of prejudgment interest.” Section 8.01-382 of the Virginia Code “provides for the discretionary award of prejudgment interest by the trier of fact, who ‘may provide for’ such interest and fix the time of its commencement.” Dairyland Ins. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
First National Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek
green
2 sentences1978In so ruling, the court relied on First National Bank v. Rostek, 182 Colo. 437 , 514 P.2d 314 (1973) in which the Colorado Supreme Court abandoned mechanical application of the traditional choice of law rule, the lex loci delicti, in multistate tort cases and adopted in its place the "most significant relationship" approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts. *799 "[F]or reasons of certainty and convenience and for the sake of . . . title recording systems" as well as for historical reasons, Restatement, supra § 222 (1971), the Restatement approach to conflicts regarding the validity of 1978In so ruling, the court relied on First National Bank v. Rostek, 182 Colo. 437 , 514 P.2d 314 (1973) in which the Colorado Supreme Court abandoned mechanical application of the traditional choice of law rule, the lex loci delicti, in multistate tort cases and adopted in its place the "most significant relationship" approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts. *799 "[F]or reasons of certainty and convenience and for the sake of . . . title recording systems" as well as for historical reasons, Restatement, supra § 222 (1971), the Restatement approach to conflicts regarding the validity of | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.