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 2 courts 1984–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrikopoulos v. Broadmoor Management Co.green1 sentence1985See Andrikopoulos v. Broadmoor Management Co., 670 P.2d 435 (Colo.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Charles F. Curry and Company v. Hedrickgreen2 sentences1984In recognition of this standard of relevancy, courts have acknowledged that "[e]vidence of other acts of defendant than those alleged and for which damages are sought, both preceding as well as following the particular acts, is admissible under an issue of exemplary damages if so connected with the particular acts as tending to show defendant's disposition, intention or motive in the commission of the particular acts for which damages are claimed." Charles F. Curry and Co. v. Hedrick, 378 S.W.2d 522, 536 (Mo.1964). 1984In recognition of this standard of relevancy, courts have acknowledged that “[ejvidence of other acts of defendant than those alleged and for which damages are sought, both preceding as well as following the particular acts, is admissible under an issue of exemplary damages if so connected with the particular acts as tending to show defendant’s disposition, intention or motive in the commission of the particular acts for which damages are claimed.” Charles F. Curry and Co. v. Hedrick, 378 S.W.2d 522, 536 (Mo.1964). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ferrer v. Okbamicael
red
1 sentence2025Second, “[e]xemplary damages do not present a separate, distinct cause of action, but rather, depend on an underlying claim for actual damages.” Ferrer v. Okbamicael, 2017 CO 14M, ¶ 44 , 21 superseded by statute on other grounds, Ch. 147, sec. 1, § 13-21- 111.5(1.5)(c), 2021 Colo. Sess. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pletchas v. Von Poppenheim
green
2 sentences1987Unnecessary repetition in charges to the jury is bad practice and is to be ■ avoided, Pletchas v. Von Poppenheim, 148 Colo. 127 , 365 P.2d 261 (1961); however, it is not, on its face, reversible error unless it reasonably appears that the jury was misled. 1987Unnecessary repetition in charges to the jury is bad practice and is to be ■ avoided, Pletchas v. Von Poppenheim, 148 Colo. 127 , 365 P.2d 261 (1961); however, it is not, on its face, reversible error unless it reasonably appears that the jury was misled. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Frick v. Abell
green
2 sentences1986There is seeming tension between this description of the exemplary damages standard as it relates to "wanton and reckless disregard” and the more demanding requirement also appearing in Frick v. Abell that exemplary damages are justified when the injury-producing act was performed "with such a wanton and reckless disregard of [the plaintiff's] rights as evidence a wrongful motive.” 198 Colo, at 511, 602 P.2d at 854 . 1986There is seeming tension between this description of the exemplary damages standard as it relates to "wanton and reckless disregard" and the more demanding requirement also appearing in Frick v. Abell that exemplary damages are justified when the injury-producing act was performed "with such a wanton and reckless disregard of [the plaintiff's] rights as evidence a wrongful motive." 198 Colo. at 511 , 602 P.2d at 854 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1985Robins Co., supra, noted that: “ ‘[EJvidence of other acts of defendant than those alleged and for which damages are sought, both preceding as well as following the particular acts, is admissible under an issue of exemplary damages if so connected with the particular acts as tending to show defendant’s disposition, intention or motive in the commission of the particular acts for which damages are claimed.’ ” This evidence was relevant to plaintiffs’ claim for exemplary damages. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.