6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bunnett v. Smallwoodgreen1 sentence2018See id. | 1 | 1 |
Bobrow Palumbo Sales, Inc. v. Broan-Nutone, LLCgreen1 sentence2012The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended in the litigation and must submit evidence in support of those hours worked."). 30 Here, the trial court found that block billing was a deviation from the standard practice in Colorado, and noted that "across-the-board percentage cuts are routinely employed by courts to remedy such block billing." See Bobrow Palumbo Sales, Inc. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, 549 F.Supp.2d 274, 283 (E.D.N.Y.2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Fisher
green
2 sentences2010"Potential injury" is harm to a client ... that is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the lawyer's misconduct, and which, but for some intervening factor or event, would probably have resulted from the lawyer's misconduct. [17] See ABA Standard 9.21. [18] See ABA Standard 9.31. [19] See ABA Standard 4.32 (emphasis added). [20] See In re Fisher, 202 P.3d 1186 (Colo.2009). 2010"Potential injury" is harm to a client . . . that is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the lawyer's misconduct, and which, but for some intervening factor or event, would probably have resulted from the lawyer's misconduct. 17 See ABA Standard 9.21. 18 See ABA Standard 9.31. 19 See ABA Standard 4.32 (emphasis added). 20 See In re Fisher , 202 P.3d 1186 (Colo. 2009). *Page 1222 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Whitney v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1991Here, since the offer of judgment was mailed eleven days before trial and there were no unique circumstances justifying a deviation from the rule, cf. Whitney v. Anderson, supra, the trial court erred in ruling that the offer of judgment was timely- The order concerning payment of costs is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for assessment of costs pursuant to C.R.C.P. 54(d). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Blankette v. Public Service Co.
green
2 sentences1960Denver Consolidated Electric Co. v. Simpson, 21 Colo. 371 , 41 P. 499 , 31 L.R.A. 566 ; Blankette v. Public Service Company of Colorado, 90 Colo. 456 , 10 P.2d 327 . 1960Denver Consolidated Electric Co. v. Simpson, 21 Colo. 371 , 41 P. 499 , 31 L.R.A. 566 ; Blankette v. Public Service Company of Colorado, 90 Colo. 456 , 10 P.2d 327 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Denver Consolidated Electric Co. v. Simpson
green
2 sentences1960Denver Consolidated Electric Co. v. Simpson, 21 Colo. 371 , 41 P. 499 , 31 L.R.A. 566 ; Blankette v. Public Service Company of Colorado, 90 Colo. 456 , 10 P.2d 327 . 1960Denver Consolidated Electric Co. v. Simpson, 21 Colo. 371 , 41 Pac. 499 ; Blankette v. Public Service Company of Colorado, 90 Colo. 456 , 10 P. (2d) 327 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.