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 1995–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fogg v. MacAlusogreen2 sentences2022Standard of Review ¶ 25 “Whether a claim falls within an exception to the [Act’s] waiver of sovereign immunity is a questio n of subject matter jurisdiction and, if raised before trial, it appro priately is addressed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).” Fogg v. Ma caluso , 892 P.2d 271, 277 (Colo. 1995). “[W]here a plaintiff has sue d a governmental entity and that entity interposes a motion to dismi ss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonst rating that governmental immunity has been waived.” Ti dwell v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 83 P.3d 75, 85 (Colo. 2003). ¶ 26 “[W]here, as he 1996Therefore, ”[w]hether a claim falls within an exception to the GIA's waiver of sovereign immunity is a question of subject matter jurisdiction and, if raised before trial, it is appropriately addressed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).” Fogg, 892 P.2d at 277 . | 1 | 4 |
Tidwell v. City and County of Denvergreen1 sentence2022Standard of Review ¶ 25 “Whether a claim falls within an exception to the [Act’s] waiver of sovereign immunity is a questio n of subject matter jurisdiction and, if raised before trial, it appro priately is addressed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).” Fogg v. Ma caluso , 892 P.2d 271, 277 (Colo. 1995). “[W]here a plaintiff has sue d a governmental entity and that entity interposes a motion to dismi ss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonst rating that governmental immunity has been waived.” Ti dwell v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 83 P.3d 75, 85 (Colo. 2003). ¶ 26 “[W]here, as he | 1 | 1 |
Henry-Hobbs v. City of Longmontgreen1 sentence2007Henry-Hobbs v. City of Longmont, 26 P.3d 533, 535 (Colo.App.2001), aff'd, 50 P.3d 906 (Colo.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Walter J. Mundy, Jr. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1995Cf. Mundy v. United States, 983 F.2d 950, 952 (9th Cir.1993) (district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction if claim is within specified exception to Federal Tort Claims Act’s general waiver of sovereign immunity; application of exception properly determined under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)). 1995Cf. Mundy v. United States, 983 F.2d 950, 952 (9th Cir.1993) (district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction if claim is within specified exception to Federal Tort Claims Act's general waiver of sovereign immunity; application of exception properly determined under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Foster v. Board of Governors ex rel. Colorado State University
green
2 sentences2022Standard of Review ¶ 25 “Whether a claim falls within an exception to the [Act’s] waiver of sovereign immunity is a questio n of subject matter jurisdiction and, if raised before trial, it appro priately is addressed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).” Fogg v. Ma caluso , 892 P.2d 271, 277 (Colo. 1995). “[W]here a plaintiff has sue d a governmental entity and that entity interposes a motion to dismi ss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonst rating that governmental immunity has been waived.” Ti dwell v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 83 P.3d 75, 85 (Colo. 2003). ¶ 26 “[W]here, as he 2022Standard of Review ¶ 25 “Whether a claim falls within an exception to the [Act’s] waiver of sovereign immunity is a questio n of subject matter jurisdiction and, if raised before trial, it appro priately is addressed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).” Fogg v. Ma caluso , 892 P.2d 271, 277 (Colo. 1995). “[W]here a plaintiff has sue d a governmental entity and that entity interposes a motion to dismi ss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonst rating that governmental immunity has been waived.” Ti dwell v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 83 P.3d 75, 85 (Colo. 2003). ¶ 26 “[W]here, as he | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Colorado Department of Transportation v. Brown Group Retail, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017The CGIA does not, however, grant immunity to public entities for non-tort claims, including claims based on “contractual relations or a distinctly non-tortious statutorily-imposed duty.” Brown Grp., 182 P.3d at 691 . ¶40 The key question, then, is whether the claim here lies in tort or could lie in tort. 2017The CGIA does not, however, grant immunity to public entities for non-tort claims, including claims based on “contractual relations or a distinctly non-tortious statutorily-imposed duty.” Brown Grp., 182 P.3d at 691 . ¶ 40 The key question, then, is whether the claim here lies in tort or could lie in tort. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Robinson v. Colorado State Lottery Division
green
2 sentences2017The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act Does Not Bar Denver Health’s Claim ¶39 The CGIA bars public liability for all claims for injury that lie in tort or could lie in tort, unless the claim falls within an exception to that immunity. § 24-10-106(1); Robinson, 179 P.3d at 1003 . 2017Immunity Act Does Not Bar Denver Health’s Claim ¶ 39 The CGIA bars public liability for all claims for injury that lie in tort or could lie in tort, unless the claim falls within an exception to that immunity. § 24-10-106(1); Robinson, 179 P.3d at 1003 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
City of Longmont v. Henry-Hobbs
green
1 sentence2007Henry-Hobbs v. City of Longmont, 26 P.3d 533, 535 (Colo.App.2001), aff'd, 50 P.3d 906 (Colo.2002). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.