6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mounkes v. Industrial Claim Appeals Officegreen1 sentence2023Claim Appeals Off., 251 P.3d 485, 488 (Colo. App. 2010) (where statute allowed for disqualification of benefits based on the “intentional falsification of expense accounts, inventories, or other records or reports,” “other records and reports” had to be interpreted to comprise records and reports of the same type as expense accounts and inventories (quoting § 8-73-108(5)(e)(VII), C.R.S. 2023))). 14 “organizer” “must exercise some sort of managerial responsibility.” Id. ¶ 30 Our supreme court used this same rule of syntax to interpret an “or any other” phrase in Mortgage Brokerage Co., 100 Colo | 1 | 1 |
Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Building Code Board of Appealsgreen1 sentence2010We agree that claimant's letter was not a "report" within the meaning of section 8-73-108(5)(e)(VII), although we do not adopt his characterization of the covered records and reports as "financial documents." As an initial matter, we review de novo the Panel's determination, reached without elaboration or analysis, that section 8-78-108(5)(e)(VII) is not ambiguous, see Duckworth v. Pratt & Whitney, Inc., 152 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1998) (determination of whether a statute is ambiguous is a question of law that appellate court reviews de novo); Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Building Code Board of Ap | 1 | 1 |
Mark Duckworth v. Pratt & Whitney, Inc.green1 sentence2010We agree that claimant's letter was not a "report" within the meaning of section 8-73-108(5)(e)(VII), although we do not adopt his characterization of the covered records and reports as "financial documents." As an initial matter, we review de novo the Panel's determination, reached without elaboration or analysis, that section 8-78-108(5)(e)(VII) is not ambiguous, see Duckworth v. Pratt & Whitney, Inc., 152 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1998) (determination of whether a statute is ambiguous is a question of law that appellate court reviews de novo); Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Building Code Board of Ap | 1 | 1 |
Davidson v. Sandstromgreen1 sentence2010See Davidson v. Sandstrom, 83 P.3d 648, 656 (Colo.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Peoplegreen1 sentence1975Second, as we said in Martinez, supra, the ejusdem generis rule is used to construe general words in a statute “as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated” when “general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things.” 111 Colo, at 57-58, 137 P.2d at 692-93 [emphasis added]. | 1 | 1 |
City & County of Denver v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1942See, City and County of Denver v. Taylor, 88 Colo. 89 , 292 Pac. 594 , in which a large number of cases from this jurisdiction are cited and discussed. 1942See, City and County of Denver v. Taylor, 88 Colo. 89 , 292 Pac. 594 , in which a large number of cases from this jurisdiction are cited and discussed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mortgage Brokerage Co. v. Mills
green
2 sentences2023Claim Appeals Off., 251 P.3d 485, 488 (Colo. App. 2010) (where statute allowed for disqualification of benefits based on the “intentional falsification of expense accounts, inventories, or other records or reports,” “other records and reports” had to be interpreted to comprise records and reports of the same type as expense accounts and inventories (quoting § 8-73-108(5)(e)(VII), C.R.S. 2023))). 14 “organizer” “must exercise some sort of managerial responsibility.” Id. ¶ 30 Our supreme court used this same rule of syntax to interpret an “or any other” phrase in Mortgage Brokerage Co., 100 Colo 2023Claim Appeals Off., 251 P.3d 485, 488 (Colo. App. 2010) (where statute allowed for disqualification of benefits based on the “intentional falsification of expense accounts, inventories, or other records or reports,” “other records and reports” had to be interpreted to comprise records and reports of the same type as expense accounts and inventories (quoting § 8-73-108(5)(e)(VII), C.R.S. 2023))). 14 “organizer” “must exercise some sort of managerial responsibility.” Id. ¶ 30 Our supreme court used this same rule of syntax to interpret an “or any other” phrase in Mortgage Brokerage Co., 100 Colo | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Winter v. People
green
2 sentences2015To interpret that phrase, the court applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis, a rule of statutory interpretation by which "general terms are applied only to those things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned." Id. at:195. 2015Winter, 126 P.3d at 195 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Gibson v. People
green
1 sentence1943The doctrine of ejusdem generis, however, is only a rule of construction, to be applied as an aid in ascertaining the legislative intent, and cannot control where the plain purpose and intent of the legislature would thereby be hindered or defeated [Martin v. Bond, 14 Colo. 446 , 24 Pac. 326 ; Gibson v. People, 44 Colo. 600 , 99 Pac. 333 ; Wilson v. People, 44 Colo. 608 , 99 Pac. 335 ]; nor does the doctrine apply where the specific words of a statute * * * embrace all objects of their class, so that the general words must bear a different meaning from the specific words or be meaningless, * * | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Wilson v. People
neutral
1 sentence1943The doctrine of ejusdem generis, however, is only a rule of construction, to be applied as an aid in ascertaining the legislative intent, and cannot control where the plain purpose and intent of the legislature would thereby be hindered or defeated [Martin v. Bond, 14 Colo. 446 , 24 Pac. 326 ; Gibson v. People, 44 Colo. 600 , 99 Pac. 333 ; Wilson v. People, 44 Colo. 608 , 99 Pac. 335 ]; nor does the doctrine apply where the specific words of a statute * * * embrace all objects of their class, so that the general words must bear a different meaning from the specific words or be meaningless, * * | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Rosier
neutral
1 sentence1943Co. v. Wallace, 38 Okl. 233 , 132 Pac. 908 , 46 L.R.A. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Lunsford v. State
neutral
1 sentence1943Co. v. Wallace, 38 Okl. 233 , 132 Pac. 908 , 46 L.R.A. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
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.