Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Colorado opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Hoargreen2 sentences1996As we noted in Colorado Springs v. Timberlane Associates, 824 P.2d 776, 777 (Colo.1992), “[t]he origin of governmental immunity from statutes of limitations is found in the English common law rule of ‘nullum tempus occurrit regi,’ or, ‘time does not run against the king.’ ” Under the nullum tem-pus rule, “no statute of limitations has been held to apply to actions brought by the crown, unless there has been an express provision including it.” United States v. Hoar, 26 F. Cas. 329, 329 (C.C.D.Mass.1821) (No. 15,373); accord, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 489-90 , 25 L.Ed. 194 (1 1992United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 489 , 25 L.Ed. 194 (1878); United States v. Hoar, 26 F.Cas. 329, 330 (C.C.D.Mass.1821) (No. 15,373). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1996As we noted in Colorado Springs v. Timberlane Associates, 824 P.2d 776, 777 (Colo.1992), “[t]he origin of governmental immunity from statutes of limitations is found in the English common law rule of ‘nullum tempus occurrit regi,’ or, ‘time does not run against the king.’ ” Under the nullum tem-pus rule, “no statute of limitations has been held to apply to actions brought by the crown, unless there has been an express provision including it.” United States v. Hoar, 26 F. Cas. 329, 329 (C.C.D.Mass.1821) (No. 15,373); accord, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 489-90 , 25 L.Ed. 194 (1 1996As we noted in Colorado Springs v. Timberlane Associates, 824 P.2d 776, 777 (Colo.1992), “[t]he origin of governmental immunity from statutes of limitations is found in the English common law rule of ‘nullum tempus occurrit regi,’ or, ‘time does not run against the king.’ ” Under the nullum tem-pus rule, “no statute of limitations has been held to apply to actions brought by the crown, unless there has been an express provision including it.” United States v. Hoar, 26 F. Cas. 329, 329 (C.C.D.Mass.1821) (No. 15,373); accord, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 489-90 , 25 L.Ed. 194 (1 | 1 | 2 |
Wilson v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2007See Wilson v. People, 103 Colo. 150 , 84 P.2d 463 (1938). 2007See Wilson v. People, 103 Colo. 150 , 84 P.2d 463 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundationgreen2 sentences2006The U.S. Supreme Court discussed the English common law doctrine that "interest follows principal" in Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156 (1998). 2006As the Supreme Court in that case concluded, The rule that "interest follows principal" has been established under English common law since at least the mid-1700's. . . . [I]nterest shall follow the principal, as the shadow the body. 524 U.S. at 165 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Roaring Fork Club, L.P. v. St. Jude's Co.green2 sentences2002Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229, 1231-32 (Colo.2001) (stating that "as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be used and developed"); Safranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 336 , 228 P.2d 975, 978 (1951) (stating that "[w]e have long since departed from the English common-law doctrine of ownership of *708 percolating waters by the surface owner"); Southwestern, 671 P.2d at 1316 (overruling Whi 2002Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229, 1231-32 (Colo.2001) (stating that "as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be used and developed"); Sofranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 336 , 228 P.2d 975, 978 (1951) (stating that "Iwle have long since departed from the English common-law doctrine of ownership of percolating waters by the surface owner"); Southwestern, 671 P.2d at 1316 (overruling Whitten | 1 | 1 |
Safranek v. Town of Limongreen2 sentences2002Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229, 1231-32 (Colo.2001) (stating that "as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be used and developed"); Safranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 336 , 228 P.2d 975, 978 (1951) (stating that "[w]e have long since departed from the English common-law doctrine of ownership of *708 percolating waters by the surface owner"); Southwestern, 671 P.2d at 1316 (overruling Whi 2002Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229, 1231-32 (Colo.2001) (stating that "as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be used and developed"); Safranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 336 , 228 P.2d 975, 978 (1951) (stating that "[w]e have long since departed from the English common-law doctrine of ownership of *708 percolating waters by the surface owner"); Southwestern, 671 P.2d at 1316 (overruling Whi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Southwestern Colorado Water Conservation Districtgreen2 sentences2002Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229, 1231-32 (Colo.2001) (stating that "as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be used and developed"); Safranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 336 , 228 P.2d 975, 978 (1951) (stating that "[w]e have long since departed from the English common-law doctrine of ownership of *708 percolating waters by the surface owner"); Southwestern, 671 P.2d at 1316 (overruling Whi 2002Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229, 1231-32 (Colo.2001) (stating that "as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be used and developed"); Sofranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 336 , 228 P.2d 975, 978 (1951) (stating that "Iwle have long since departed from the English common-law doctrine of ownership of percolating waters by the surface owner"); Southwestern, 671 P.2d at 1316 (overruling Whitten | 1 | 1 |
City of Colorado Springs v. Timberlane Associatesgreen2 sentences1996As we noted in Colorado Springs v. Timberlane Associates, 824 P.2d 776, 777 (Colo.1992), “[t]he origin of governmental immunity from statutes of limitations is found in the English common law rule of ‘nullum tempus occurrit regi,’ or, ‘time does not run against the king.’ ” Under the nullum tem-pus rule, “no statute of limitations has been held to apply to actions brought by the crown, unless there has been an express provision including it.” United States v. Hoar, 26 F. Cas. 329, 329 (C.C.D.Mass.1821) (No. 15,373); accord, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 489-90 , 25 L.Ed. 194 (1 1996“The nullum tempus doctrine was imported to the colonies as an incident of sovereignty when the colonies achieved their independence.” Timberlane, 824 P.2d at 778 ; accord, e.g., Thompson, 98 U.S. at 487-88 , 25 L.Ed. 194 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bertrand v. Board of County Commissioners of Park County
green
1 sentence2015Comm'rs, 872 P.2d 223 , 225 (Colo.1994). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Colorado Water Conservation Board
green
2 sentences2002Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229, 1231-32 (Colo.2001) (stating that "as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be used and developed"); Safranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 336 , 228 P.2d 975, 978 (1951) (stating that "[w]e have long since departed from the English common-law doctrine of ownership of *708 percolating waters by the surface owner"); Southwestern, 671 P.2d at 1316 (overruling Whi 2002Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229, 1231-32 (Colo.2001) (stating that "as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be used and developed"); Safranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 336 , 228 P.2d 975, 978 (1951) (stating that "[w]e have long since departed from the English common-law doctrine of ownership of *708 percolating waters by the surface owner"); Southwestern, 671 P.2d at 1316 (overruling Whi | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Whitten v. Coit
green
2 sentences2002Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229, 1231-32 (Colo.2001) (stating that "as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be used and developed"); Safranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 336 , 228 P.2d 975, 978 (1951) (stating that "[w]e have long since departed from the English common-law doctrine of ownership of *708 percolating waters by the surface owner"); Southwestern, 671 P.2d at 1316 (overruling Whi 2002Jude's Co., 36 P.3d 1229, 1231-32 (Colo.2001) (stating that "as early as the tenure of the territorial legislature, our lawmakers recognized that our arid climate required the creation of a right to appropriate and convey water across the land of another so that lands not immediately proximate to water could be used and developed"); Safranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 336 , 228 P.2d 975, 978 (1951) (stating that "[w]e have long since departed from the English common-law doctrine of ownership of *708 percolating waters by the surface owner"); Southwestern, 671 P.2d at 1316 (overruling Whi | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.