6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2011 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nah v. Slsgreen1 sentence2011Our supreme court addressed this method in N.A.H. v. S.L.S., 9 P.3d 354, 859-65 (Colo.2000), concluding that it must include consideration of the child's best interests. | 1 | 1 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Lohngreen2 sentences2008See § 13-20-1004, C.R.S. (2007); McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Lohn, 192 Colo. 200, 201-02 , 557 P.2d 373, 374 (1976). [2] In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendants purported to seek dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2008See § 13-20-1004, C.R.S. (2007); McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Lohn, 192 Colo. 200, 201-02 , 557 P.2d 373, 374 (1976). [2] In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendants purported to seek dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Jacobsgreen1 sentence2004See In re Marriage of Jacobs, supra. Here, the parties stipulated that the court could resolve husband’s motion on the briefs, without any further hearing, “unless the Court determines that a hearing is necessary to hear any factual issues that may be in dispute.” The record reflects that numerous issues of fact were disputed, including the time during which the older child lived with husband or husband’s mother and the appropriate amount of income to be attributed to husband and to wife. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ressingreen1 sentence2002See Ressin, 620 P.2d at 719 ; Maine v. Reed, 686 A.2d 1067, 1069 (Me.1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reedgreen1 sentence2002See Ressin, 620 P.2d at 719 ; Maine v. Reed, 686 A.2d 1067, 1069 (Me.1996). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hollisgreen1 sentence1996See People v. Hollis, 670 P.2d 441 (Colo.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Lybarger v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1995Lybarger v. People, 807 P.2d 570, 579 (Colo.1991) ("[T]he question of the availability of the defense is for the court and not the jury...." (emphasis supplied)) Second, if the court determines that the defense is legally available for assertion as a defense to the crime charged, it must next be determined whether there has been sufficient evidence presented to raise a factual issue as to the existence of the defense. 1995Lybarger v. People, 807 P.2d 570, 579 (Colo.1991) (“[T]he question of the availability of the defense is for the court and not the jury_” (emphasis supplied)) Second, if the court determines that the defense is legally available for assertion as a defense to the crime charged, it must next be determined whether there has been sufficient evidence presented to raise a factual issue as to the existence of the defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.