6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Owens v. Tergesongreen1 sentence2023See Owens, ¶ 45, 363 P.3d at 836 (explaining there is no objective, formulaic standard for determining what is, or is not, due diligence); Jay.J.L., ¶ 40, 514 P.3d at 320 (explaining how the due diligence test as articulated by the division in A-J.A.B. | 1 | 1 |
Lobato v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2022Lobato v. Taylor, 70 P.3d 1152, 1161 (Colo. 2003). ¶ 30 The verified motion seeking service by publication was filed on March 29, 2006. | 1 | 1 |
Gamewell v. Strumplergreen2 sentences2008See Gamewell v. Strumpler, 84 Colo. 459, 466 , 271 P. 180, 182 (1928) (return "by such officer or person that defendant cannot, after diligent search, be found therein, constitutes a proper and sufficient basis for publication of the summons"); see also Rael v. Taylor, 876 P.2d 1210 , 1227 n. 27 *133 (Colo.1994)("A petitioner in a quiet title proceeding who complies with the requirement of [Rule 4(g)] in effect provides the trial court with evidence presumptively establishing that the due diligence standard of notice has been satisfied."). 2008See Gamewell v. Strumpler, 84 Colo. 459, 466 , 271 P. 180, 182 (1928) (return "by such officer or person that defendant cannot, after diligent search, be found therein, constitutes a proper and sufficient basis for publication of the summons"); see also Rael v. Taylor, 876 P.2d 1210 , 1227 n. 27 *133 (Colo.1994)("A petitioner in a quiet title proceeding who complies with the requirement of [Rule 4(g)] in effect provides the trial court with evidence presumptively establishing that the due diligence standard of notice has been satisfied."). | 1 | 1 |
Rael v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2008See Gamewell v. Strumpler, 84 Colo. 459, 466 , 271 P. 180, 182 (1928) (return "by such officer or person that defendant cannot, after diligent search, be found therein, constitutes a proper and sufficient basis for publication of the summons"); see also Rael v. Taylor, 876 P.2d 1210 , 1227 n. 27 *133 (Colo.1994)("A petitioner in a quiet title proceeding who complies with the requirement of [Rule 4(g)] in effect provides the trial court with evidence presumptively establishing that the due diligence standard of notice has been satisfied."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
H.J.B. v. A - J.A.B. Judgment Affirmed JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ JUSTICE HOOD JUSTICE GABRIEL JUSTICE HART
green
2 sentences2025H.J.B. v. People in Interest of A-J.A.B., 2023 CO 48, ¶ 5 . ¶ 11 Due diligence requires a department to “earnestly endeavor to investigate the basis” for an assertion that the child may be an Indian child, contact any family members or others specifically identified by a parent as having knowledge of Indian heritage, and learn if there is further information that would help the court in determining if there is a reason to know that the child is an Indian child. 2025H.J.B. v. People in Interest of A-J.A.B., 2023 CO 48, ¶ 5 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
White v. Ainsworth
green
2 sentences1994In White v. Ainsworth, 62 Colo. 513 , 163 P. 959 (1917), this court upheld the constitutionality of the publication notice provisions of the Torrens Act as applicable to out-of-state residents. 1994In White v. Ainstvorth, 62 Colo. 513 , 163 P. 959 (1917), this court upheld the constitutionality of the publication notice provisions of the Torrens Act as applicable to out-of-state residents. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.