continued requirement (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

continued requirement in Colorado

6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2026 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
People in Interest of AMDgreen
colo · 1982 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985See People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo.1982); People in Interest of C.L.I., supra ; People in Interest of M.C.C., 641 P.2d 306 (Colo.App.1982).

1985See People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo.1982); People in Interest of C.L.I., supra; People in Interest of M.C.C., 641 P.2d 306 (Colo.App.1982).

22
In Re the Marriage of Bowlesgreen
coloctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026See In re Marriage of Bowles, 916 P.2d 615, 617 (Colo. App. 1995). ¶ 10 Moreover, during the continued hearing, mother’s counsel asked mother why she was asking the court to order father to pay a portion of her fees.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
People in Interest of C.L.I. green
coloctapp · 1985
2 sentences

1985See People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo.1982); People in Interest of C.L.I., supra ; People in Interest of M.C.C., 641 P.2d 306 (Colo.App.1982).

1985See People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo.1982); People in Interest of C.L.I., supra; People in Interest of M.C.C., 641 P.2d 306 (Colo.App.1982).

21985–1985
People in Interest of MCC green
coloctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1985See People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo.1982); People in Interest of C.L.I., supra ; People in Interest of M.C.C., 641 P.2d 306 (Colo.App.1982).

1985See People in Interest of A.M.D., 648 P.2d 625 (Colo.1982); People in Interest of C.L.I., supra; People in Interest of M.C.C., 641 P.2d 306 (Colo.App.1982).

21985–1985
People v. Arguello green
colo · 1989
1 sentence

2020Id. (noting the importance of “adequately explaining to [the defendant] the potential consequences of his behavior” before imposing a forfeiture of a right based on such behavior).

12020–2020
Davis v. Washington green
scotus · 2006
1 sentence

2006Davis, 126 S.Ct. at 2278 .

12006–2006
Lessee of Ewing v. Burnet green
· 1837
1 sentence

1915But to be adverse it must be a pedis possessio, or an actual possession'.’ In Ewing v. Burnett, 11 Pet. 41, 53 , it was held that neither actual occupancy, nor cultivation, nor residence was necessary to constitute actual possession; that where the property is so situated as not to admit of any permanent useful improvements, and the continued claim of the party has been evidenced by public acts of ownership, such as he would exercise over property which he claimed in his own right, and would not exercise over property he did not claim, such possession will create a bar under the statute of lim

11915–1915

Where else courts name it

CA 146 (1881–2026) TX 41 (1915–2025) IL 29 (1895–2025) NY 25 (1941–2025) PA 21 (1941–2023) OH 17 (1932–2026) OR 14 (1959–2025) FL 13 (1964–2024) MO 12 (1894–2019) MS 11 (1904–2022) MI 10 (1951–2024) AZ 9 (1973–2023) NJ 8 (1926–2008) AL 8 (1988–2009) IN 8 (1875–2012) CT 8 (1940–2020) VT 8 (1990–2024) HI 7 (1990–2021) GA 6 (1978–2008) DC 6 (1971–2024) CO 6 (1915–2026) VA 6 (1994–2025) AR 5 (1925–2017) LA 5 (1892–2007) MD 5 (1992–2013) RI 5 (1903–2011) TN 5 (1993–2023) ME 5 (1967–2002) NE 5 (1906–2013) KS 4 (1994–2014) KY 4 (1988–2023) AK 4 (1988–2024) WI 4 (1938–2026) UT 4 (2014–2015) NM 4 (1946–2012) MN 3 (1897–1989) SD 3 (1988–2022) OK 3 (1931–2003) IA 3 (1989–2022) ID 3 (1916–2011) NC 2 (1930–1980)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check