6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
A-1 Auto Repair & Detail, Inc. v. Bilunas-Hardygreen2 sentences2016A-1 Auto Repair & Detail, Inc. v. Bilunas-Hardy , 93 P.3d 598, 600 (Colo. App. 2004). 2016A-1 Auto Repair & Detail, Inc. v. Bilunas-Hardy, 93 P.3d 598, 600 (Colo.App.2004). | 2 | 2 |
Harrell v. the Florida Bargreen1 sentence2022See Portley-El v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., slip op. at 5-6 (Colo. App. No. 15CA2097, Aug. 25, 2016) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)) (noting that by the time of the DOC’s motion to dismiss, it had formally amended the applicable regulation and explaining that, absent evidence to the contrary, courts can “assume that formally announced changes to official governmental policy are not mere litigation posturing” (quoting Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 325 (5th Cir. 2009))). 12 prison officials changed course to moot the case (quoting Harrell v. Fla. Bar, 608 F.3d 1241, 12 | 1 | 1 |
Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texasgreen1 sentence2022See Portley-El v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., slip op. at 5-6 (Colo. App. No. 15CA2097, Aug. 25, 2016) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)) (noting that by the time of the DOC’s motion to dismiss, it had formally amended the applicable regulation and explaining that, absent evidence to the contrary, courts can “assume that formally announced changes to official governmental policy are not mere litigation posturing” (quoting Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 325 (5th Cir. 2009))). 12 prison officials changed course to moot the case (quoting Harrell v. Fla. Bar, 608 F.3d 1241, 12 | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Buhmangreen1 sentence2022See Portley-El v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., slip op. at 5-6 (Colo. App. No. 15CA2097, Aug. 25, 2016) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)) (noting that by the time of the DOC’s motion to dismiss, it had formally amended the applicable regulation and explaining that, absent evidence to the contrary, courts can “assume that formally announced changes to official governmental policy are not mere litigation posturing” (quoting Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 325 (5th Cir. 2009))). 12 prison officials changed course to moot the case (quoting Harrell v. Fla. Bar, 608 F.3d 1241, 12 | 1 | 1 |
People v. PLANCARTEgreen1 sentence2016See People v. Plancarte , 232 P.3d 186, 193 (Colo. App. 2009). 4 We are not convinced that Fetzer’s response to DOC’s motion to dismiss should be construed as a motion for reconsideration. | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Millsgreen1 sentence2001See Price v. Mills, supra. According to the DOC's brief, for parole eligibility computation purposes only, the DOC assumes a month is equal to 30 days. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Maketa
green
1 sentence2025See Owens, ¶ 21; Graham, 227 P.3d at 518 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Tippett v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2019Cf. Tippett v. Johnson , 742 P.2d 314 , 315 (Colo. 1987) (stating habeas claim rendered moot when the relief requested-complete discharge of sentence-had already occurred). 4 In this case, though, all three of Jones's mittimuses are in the record. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.