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.
6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1889–2021 2 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. Pereagreen1 sentence2021See Collins , 250 P.3d at 678 (concluding that the prosecution’s description of defense counsel’s theory of reasonable doubt as “absurd” did not denigrate defense counsel because it “was merely a response to defense counsel’s assertions that the jury could not find defendant guilty beyond a reas onable doubt”); Peopl e 41 v. Perea , 126 P.3d 241, 248 (Colo. App. 2005) (concl uding that the prosecution did not denigrate defense counsel with a comment that defense counsel “has misstated the law” because the comm ent was “made as a means of focusing the jury’s attention on relevant evidence”); Al | 1 | 1 |
People v. Alleegreen1 sentence2021See Collins , 250 P.3d at 678 (concluding that the prosecution’s description of defense counsel’s theory of reasonable doubt as “absurd” did not denigrate defense counsel because it “was merely a response to defense counsel’s assertions that the jury could not find defendant guilty beyond a reas onable doubt”); Peopl e 41 v. Perea , 126 P.3d 241, 248 (Colo. App. 2005) (concl uding that the prosecution did not denigrate defense counsel with a comment that defense counsel “has misstated the law” because the comm ent was “made as a means of focusing the jury’s attention on relevant evidence”); Al | 1 | 1 |
People v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2021“Girls” ¶ 98 Romero contends that the prosecution committed misconduct in its rebuttal closing argument when it made “an effort to engender sympathy” for A.R. and G.S. by referring to them as “girls.” We disagree. ¶ 99 G.S. and A.R. were minors when the charged offenses b egan and were twenty-five years old and nineteen years old at the tim e of trial. ¶ 100 As noted above, during its rebuttal closing argument, t he prosecution stated, “[Y]ou can also look at the way that the girls 42 were consistent.” Defense counsel then objected “to the u se of the word girls.” The trial court overruled thi 2021See Collins , 250 P.3d at 678 (concluding that the prosecution’s description of defense counsel’s theory of reasonable doubt as “absurd” did not denigrate defense counsel because it “was merely a response to defense counsel’s assertions that the jury could not find defendant guilty beyond a reas onable doubt”); Peopl e 41 v. Perea , 126 P.3d 241, 248 (Colo. App. 2005) (concl uding that the prosecution did not denigrate defense counsel with a comment that defense counsel “has misstated the law” because the comm ent was “made as a means of focusing the jury’s attention on relevant evidence”); Al | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tunisgreen1 sentence2017See Gallegos, ¶ 10, 307 P.3d at 1100; see also Tunis, ¶ 39, 318 P.3d at 531 (after Gallegos ,. “we must disregard” the screening instrument’s findings regarding the relationship criterion). ¶ 52 The Gallegos court further held that a- defendant’s conduct during the commission of the sexual assault or offense cannot be used to satisfy the relationship element of the SVP statute. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Pueblo Quarries, Inc.green2 sentences1959See Clark v. Pueblo Quarries, Inc. (1939), 103 Colo. 402 , 86 P. (2d) 602 . 1959See Clark v. Pueblo Quarries, Inc. (1939), 103 Colo. 402 , 86 P. (2d) 602 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Vialpando
green
1 sentence2021See Collins , 250 P.3d at 678 (concluding that the prosecution’s description of defense counsel’s theory of reasonable doubt as “absurd” did not denigrate defense counsel because it “was merely a response to defense counsel’s assertions that the jury could not find defendant guilty beyond a reas onable doubt”); Peopl e 41 v. Perea , 126 P.3d 241, 248 (Colo. App. 2005) (concl uding that the prosecution did not denigrate defense counsel with a comment that defense counsel “has misstated the law” because the comm ent was “made as a means of focusing the jury’s attention on relevant evidence”); Al | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Club Valencia Homeowners Ass'n v. Valencia Associates
green
1 sentence2021Hirsch Revocable Tr. v. Ireson , 2020 COA 157, ¶ 12 , 490 P.3d 963 ( Begley II ). 506 P.3d 90 ¶ 13 We begin our analysis by asking: What is the litigation privilege? ¶ 14 As a division of this court explained in Club Valencia , 712 P.2d at 1027 , Colorado adheres to the description of the privilege found in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 586 (Am. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Wend v. People
green
1 sentence2021“Girls” ¶ 98 Romero contends that the prosecution committed misconduct in its rebuttal closing argument when it made “an effort to engender sympathy” for A.R. and G.S. by referring to them as “girls.” We disagree. ¶ 99 G.S. and A.R. were minors when the charged offenses b egan and were twenty-five years old and nineteen years old at the tim e of trial. ¶ 100 As noted above, during its rebuttal closing argument, t he prosecution stated, “[Y]ou can also look at the way that the girls 42 were consistent.” Defense counsel then objected “to the u se of the word girls.” The trial court overruled thi | 1 | 2021–2021 |
v. Ireson
green
2 sentences2021Hirsch Revocable Tr. v. Ireson , 2020 COA 157, ¶ 12 , 490 P.3d 963 ( Begley II ). 506 P.3d 90 ¶ 13 We begin our analysis by asking: What is the litigation privilege? ¶ 14 As a division of this court explained in Club Valencia , 712 P.2d at 1027 , Colorado adheres to the description of the privilege found in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 586 (Am. 2021Hirsch Revocable Tr. v. Ireson , 2020 COA 157, ¶ 12 , 490 P.3d 963 ( Begley II ). 506 P.3d 90 ¶ 13 We begin our analysis by asking: What is the litigation privilege? ¶ 14 As a division of this court explained in Club Valencia , 712 P.2d at 1027 , Colorado adheres to the description of the privilege found in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 586 (Am. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bedor v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2015Preservation and Standard of Review ¶ 66 The parties agree, and we concur, that plaintiff preserved his argument regarding Instruction 16. ¶ 67 "Trial courts have a duty to correctly instruct juries on matters of law." Bedor v. Johnson, 2013 CO 4 , ¶ 8, 292 P.3d 924 . 2015Preservation and Standard of Review ¶ 66 The parties agree, and we concur, that plaintiff preserved his argument regarding Instruction 16. ¶ 67 "Trial courts have a duty to correctly instruct juries on matters of law." Bedor v. Johnson, 2013 CO 4 , ¶ 8, 292 P.3d 924 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Barclay v. Quicksilver Mining Co.
neutral
1 sentence1889S. U. S. § 2324) requires that the record of mining claims shall contain “such a description of the claim or claims located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim.” In the case of Mining Co. v. Mining Co., supra, it is said: “The natural objects or per-' manent monuments here referred to are not required to be on the ground located, although they may be, and the natural object may consist of any fixed natural object; and sunh permanent monument may consist of a prominent post or stake firmly planted in the ground, or of a shaft sunk in the ground.” | 1 | 1889–1889 |
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.