6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Lakewood v. Bracegreen1 sentence2005See City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231 (Colo.1996) (a public employee’s assertion of qualified immunity under the GIA does not present a jurisdictional issue; qualified immunity entitles an employee to immunity from liability, not from suit and, as a result, such claims are not the proper subject of an interlocutory appeal); Richardson v. Starks, 36 P.3d 168,170-71 (Colo.App.2001); see also Gallagher v. Bd. of Trs., 54 P.3d 386, 395 (Colo.2002) (“the legislature foreshadowed our holding in Brace that an allegation of willful and wanton conduct does not raise a jurisdictional matter under | 1 | 1 |
Richardson Ex Rel. Richardson v. Starksgreen1 sentence2005See City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231 (Colo.1996) (a public employee’s assertion of qualified immunity under the GIA does not present a jurisdictional issue; qualified immunity entitles an employee to immunity from liability, not from suit and, as a result, such claims are not the proper subject of an interlocutory appeal); Richardson v. Starks, 36 P.3d 168,170-71 (Colo.App.2001); see also Gallagher v. Bd. of Trs., 54 P.3d 386, 395 (Colo.2002) (“the legislature foreshadowed our holding in Brace that an allegation of willful and wanton conduct does not raise a jurisdictional matter under | 1 | 1 |
Gallagher v. Board of Trustees for the University of Northern Coloradogreen1 sentence2005See City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231 (Colo.1996) (a public employee’s assertion of qualified immunity under the GIA does not present a jurisdictional issue; qualified immunity entitles an employee to immunity from liability, not from suit and, as a result, such claims are not the proper subject of an interlocutory appeal); Richardson v. Starks, 36 P.3d 168,170-71 (Colo.App.2001); see also Gallagher v. Bd. of Trs., 54 P.3d 386, 395 (Colo.2002) (“the legislature foreshadowed our holding in Brace that an allegation of willful and wanton conduct does not raise a jurisdictional matter under | 1 | 1 |
Medina v. Stategreen1 sentence2002The legislature's directive to treat the determination of a public employee's sovereign immunity as a pre-trial matter is consistent with the policy behind the CIA that led us to conclude that "our legislature views governmental immunity as necessary for good government." Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443, 453 (Colo.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Nieto v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See also Nieto v. State, 952 P.2d 834 (Colo.App.1997) (cert. granted March 23, 1998) (dismissal of public employee based on affirmative defense unrelated to governmental immunity does not bar suit based on respondeat superior against the public entity); Cobbin v. City & County of Denver, 735 P.2d 214 (Colo.App.1987) (dismissal of agent did not bar action against principal on basis of respondeat superior). | 1 | 1 |
Cheney v. Haileygreen1 sentence1998See Cheney v. Hailey, 686 P.2d 808 (Colo.App.1984) (a dismissal which does not favorably absolve or exonerate the employee does not bar a respondeat superior claim against the employer). | 1 | 1 |
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenzgreen2 sentences1997An employee states a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where the employee has been terminated for exercising “an important job-related right or privilege,” and the employer’s action “undermine[s] a clearly expressed public policy relating to ... the employee’s right or privilege as a worker.” Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 109 (Colo.1992). 1997An employee states a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where the employee has been terminated for exercising "an important job-related right or privilege," and the employer's action "undermine[s] a clearly expressed public policy relating to ... the employee's right or privilege as a worker." Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 109 (Colo.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cobbin Ex Rel. Cobbin v. City & County of Denver
green
1 sentence1998See also Nieto v. State, 952 P.2d 834 (Colo.App.1997) (cert. granted March 23, 1998) (dismissal of public employee based on affirmative defense unrelated to governmental immunity does not bar suit based on respondeat superior against the public entity); Cobbin v. City & County of Denver, 735 P.2d 214 (Colo.App.1987) (dismissal of agent did not bar action against principal on basis of respondeat superior). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Hilzer v. MacDonald
green
2 sentences1991Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230 , 454 P.2d 928 (1969). 1991Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230 , 454 P.2d 928 (1969). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Bill Lawley Ford v. Miller
green
1 sentence1988This rule is the converse of that in Bill Lawley Ford v. Miller, supra, which held an employee is not within the course of his employment when he violates an employer’s specific order that limits the sphere of his employment. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.