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 2016–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Department of Transportation v. Stapletongreen2 sentences2016See Dep't of Transp. v. Stapleton, 97 P.3d 938, 939 (Colo.2004) (district court addressed whether petitioners had legal authority to condemn the property); Potashnik v. Pub, Serv. 2016See Dep’t of Transp. v. Stapleton , 97 P.3d 938, 939 (Colo. 2004) (district court addressed whether petitioners had legal authority to condemn the property); Potashnik v. Pub. | 3 | 3 |
GLENELK ASS'N, INC. v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2016"If the trial court concludes that the condemnor has established the right to condemn the property in question, it may grant immediate possession of the property." Lewis, 260 P.3d at 1122 (emphasis added). 120 In an immediate possession hearing, a district court hears challenges to a public entity's condemnation based on an alleged lack of authority. 2016“If the trial court concludes that the condemnor has established the right to condemn the property in question, it may grant immediate possession of the property.” Lewis , 260 P.3d at 1122 (emphasis added). ¶20 In an immediate possession hearing, a district court hears challenges to a public entity’s condemnation based on an alleged lack of authority. | 3 | 3 |
American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. American National Property and Casualty Companygreen2 sentences2026Thus, Carousel Farms did not hold that condemnation is permissible in all circumstances where there is a legitimate factual dispute about whether the condemnation serves a public purpose, as is the case here. ¶24 Arrowhead also relies on American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. American National Property &Casualty Co. , 2015 COA 135 , ¶ 46 , 370 P.3d 319 , 330 , where, in the context of a hearing on a motion to dismiss , the court of appeals affirmed a trial court 's denial of discovery prior to the case being "at issue" because "no good cause has been shown." Arrowhead likens that C.R.C.P. 12 2026Thus, Carousel Farms did not hold that condemnation is permissible in all circumstances where there is a legitimate factual dispute about whether the condemnation serves a public purpose, as is the case here. ¶24 Arrowhead also relies on American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. American National Property &Casualty Co. , 2015 COA 135 , ¶ 46 , 370 P.3d 319 , 330 , where, in the context of a hearing on a motion to dismiss , the court of appeals affirmed a trial court 's denial of discovery prior to the case being "at issue" because "no good cause has been shown." Arrowhead likens that C.R.C.P. 12 | 1 | 1 |
Carousel Farms Metro. Dist. v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc.green2 sentences2026N. Integrated Supply Project Water Activity Enter. , ¶ 10 , 588 P.3d at 731 . ¶23 Notwithstanding the plain language of the rules, Arrowhead contends that Carousel Farms Metropolitan District v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc. , 2019 CO 51 , ¶ 36 , 442 P.3d 402 , 411 , supports its position that discovery is precluded in an immediate possession hearing due to the hearing's expedited nature. 2026N. Integrated Supply Project Water Activity Enter. , ¶ 10 , 588 P.3d at 731 . ¶23 Notwithstanding the plain language of the rules, Arrowhead contends that Carousel Farms Metropolitan District v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc. , 2019 CO 51 , ¶ 36 , 442 P.3d 402 , 411 , supports its position that discovery is precluded in an immediate possession hearing due to the hearing's expedited nature. | 1 | 1 |
Pine Martin Mining Co. v. Empire Zinc Co.green2 sentences2024See Town of Silverthorne v. Lutz , 2016 COA 17, ¶ 20 ( “In an immediate possession hearing, a district court hears challenges to a public entity’s condemnation based on an alleged lack of authority.” ); Wassenich v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 186 P. 533, 53 6 (Colo. 1919) (a district court must settle the question of whether the petitione r is entitled to condemn the property in advance of possession); see a lso Pine Martin Mining Co. v. Empire Zinc Co. , 11 P.2d 221, 223 - 24 (Colo. 1932) (whether an act authorizing condemnation procee dings is constitutional is a question for the court). ¶ 23 2024See Town of Silverthorne v. Lutz, 2016 COA 17 , ¶ 20 (“In an immediate possession hearing, a district court hears challenges to a public entity’s condemnation based on an alleged lack of authority.”); Wassenich v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 186 P. 533, 536 (Colo. 1919) (a district court must settle the question of whether the petitioner is entitled to condemn the property in advance of possession); see also Pine Martin Mining Co. v. Empire Zinc Co., 11 P.2d 221, 223-24 (Colo. 1932) (whether an act authorizing condemnation proceedings is constitutional is a question for the court). ¶ 23 Accordingl | 1 | 1 |
Wassenich v. City & County of Denvergreen2 sentences2024See Town of Silverthorne v. Lutz , 2016 COA 17, ¶ 20 ( “In an immediate possession hearing, a district court hears challenges to a public entity’s condemnation based on an alleged lack of authority.” ); Wassenich v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 186 P. 533, 53 6 (Colo. 1919) (a district court must settle the question of whether the petitione r is entitled to condemn the property in advance of possession); see a lso Pine Martin Mining Co. v. Empire Zinc Co. , 11 P.2d 221, 223 - 24 (Colo. 1932) (whether an act authorizing condemnation procee dings is constitutional is a question for the court). ¶ 23 2024See Town of Silverthorne v. Lutz, 2016 COA 17 , ¶ 20 (“In an immediate possession hearing, a district court hears challenges to a public entity’s condemnation based on an alleged lack of authority.”); Wassenich v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 186 P. 533, 536 (Colo. 1919) (a district court must settle the question of whether the petitioner is entitled to condemn the property in advance of possession); see also Pine Martin Mining Co. v. Empire Zinc Co., 11 P.2d 221, 223-24 (Colo. 1932) (whether an act authorizing condemnation proceedings is constitutional is a question for the court). ¶ 23 Accordingl | 1 | 1 |
Town of Silverthorne v. Lutzgreen2 sentences2024See Town of Silverthorne v. Lutz , 2016 COA 17, ¶ 20 ( “In an immediate possession hearing, a district court hears challenges to a public entity’s condemnation based on an alleged lack of authority.” ); Wassenich v. City & Cnty. of Denver , 186 P. 533, 53 6 (Colo. 1919) (a district court must settle the question of whether the petitione r is entitled to condemn the property in advance of possession); see a lso Pine Martin Mining Co. v. Empire Zinc Co. , 11 P.2d 221, 223 - 24 (Colo. 1932) (whether an act authorizing condemnation procee dings is constitutional is a question for the court). ¶ 23 2024See Town of Silverthorne v. Lutz, 2016 COA 17 , ¶ 20 (“In an immediate possession hearing, a district court hears challenges to a public entity’s condemnation based on an alleged lack of authority.”); Wassenich v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 186 P. 533, 536 (Colo. 1919) (a district court must settle the question of whether the petitioner is entitled to condemn the property in advance of possession); see also Pine Martin Mining Co. v. Empire Zinc Co., 11 P.2d 221, 223-24 (Colo. 1932) (whether an act authorizing condemnation proceedings is constitutional is a question for the court). ¶ 23 Accordingl | 1 | 1 |
Town of Telluride v. San Miguel Valley Corp.green1 sentence2016Town of Telluride v. San Miguel Valley Corp., 185 P.3d 161, 165 (Colo.2008), The trial court found, and the parties do not dispute, that section 14.3 of the Town Charter grants the Town the power of enunent domain under article XX, + $19 During a condemnation proceeding, an entity. seeking to condemn private property may move for immediate possession of the land, to be determined in an immediate possession hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Board of County Commissioners of County of Weld v. DPG Farms, LLC
green
1 sentence2024Comm’rs v. DPG Farms, LLC, 2017 COA 83, ¶ 4 . ¶ 39 Section 38-1-105(6)(a), C.R.S. 2024, governs the immediate possession hearing and provides in relevant part: At any stage of such new proceedings or of any proceedings under this article, the court, by rule in that behalf made, may authorize the petitioner, if already in possession, to use, and, if not in possession, to take possession of and use, said premises during the pendency and until the final conclusion of such proceedings and may stay all actions and proceedings against such petitioner on account thereof, if such petitioner pays a suf | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.