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 1983–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rancho Colorado, Inc. v. City of Broomfieldgreen2 sentences1983See Rancho Colorado, Inc. v. City of Broomfield, 196 Colo. 444 , 586 P.2d 659 (1978); Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 , 101 S.Ct. 2615 , 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981). 1983See Rancho Colorado, Inc. v. City of Broomfield, 196 Colo. 444 , 586 P.2d 659 (1978); Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 , 101 S.Ct. 2615 , 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Rockwell
green
2 sentences2016Id. (emphases added). 124 Again, section. 18-1.3-501(1)(c) was proposed to the General Assembly by the defense bar, and Ms. Cain and Ms. Frolich were the defense bar's representatives testifying on behalf of the amendment,. 2016Id. (emphases added). ¶24 Again, section 18-1.3-501(1)(c) was proposed to the General Assembly by the defense bar, and Ms. Cain and Ms. Frolich were the defense bar’s representatives testifying on behalf of the amendment. | 3 | 2016–2016 |
People v. McNeese
green
1 sentence1998People v. Guenther, supra. The supreme court in People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo.1995) determined that it was the intent of the General Assembly to provide immunity for occupants against intruders who unlawfully entered a dwelling to commit a crime, but not to grant immunity for the use of physical force against persons who either entered accidentally or in good faith. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Guenther
green
1 sentence1998People v. Guenther, supra. The supreme court in People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo.1995) determined that it was the intent of the General Assembly to provide immunity for occupants against intruders who unlawfully entered a dwelling to commit a crime, but not to grant immunity for the use of physical force against persons who either entered accidentally or in good faith. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm
green
2 sentences1985In Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm, 700 P.2d 508 (Colo.1985), we considered the standing of the general assembly to challenge transfers of funds from the departments of the executive branch of government for which they were appropriated to other executive departments. 1985In Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm, 700 P.2d 508 (Colo.1985), we considered the standing of the general assembly to challenge transfers of funds from the departments of the executive branch of government for which they were appropriated to other executive departments. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.
green
2 sentences1983See Rancho Colorado, Inc. v. City of Broomfield, 196 Colo. 444 , 586 P.2d 659 (1978); Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 , 101 S.Ct. 2615 , 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981). 1983See Rancho Colorado, Inc. v. City of Broomfield, 196 Colo. 444 , 586 P.2d 659 (1978); Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 , 101 S.Ct. 2615 , 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.