infallible test (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

infallible test in Colorado

6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1935–1989 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Tanner Substituted for Dupraw v. Treasury Tunnel Mining & Reduction Co. green
colo · 1906
2 sentences

1988Tanner v. Treasury Tunnel Mining & Reduction Co., 35 Colo. 593 , 83 P. 464 (1906).

1973It was stated in Tanner v. Treasury Tunnel Co., 35 Colo. 593 , 83 P. 464 (1906), as follows: “No definition, however, has as yet been formulated which would serve as an infallible test in determining whether a use of property sought to be appropriated under the power of eminent domain is public or private.

41973–1988
Larson v. Chase Pipe Line Company green
colo · 1973
2 sentences

1989In Larson v. Chase Pipe Line Co., 183 Colo. 76 , 514 P.2d 1316 (1973), we stated: No definition, however, has as yet been formulated which would serve as an infallible test in determining whether a use of property sought to be appropriated under the power of eminent domain is public or private.

1989In Larson v. Chase Pipe Line Co., 183 Colo. 76 , 514 P.2d 1316 (1973), we stated: No definition, however, has as yet been formulated which would serve as an infallible test in determining whether a use of property sought to be appropriated under the power of eminent domain is public or private.

11989–1989
Pittinger v. Pittinger green
colo · 1901
1 sentence

1935In Pittinger v. Pittinger, 28 Colo. 308 , 64 Pac. 195 , we said: “In cases of this character, no inflexible rule can be laid down, which would be an infallible test by which to determine whether a marriage has been dissolved or not.

11935–1935

Where else courts name it

IA 11 (1889–1979) PA 10 (1965–2024) SD 7 (1939–1999) CO 6 (1935–1989) GA 6 (1899–1960) OK 6 (1915–1983) TN 5 (1970–1981) MO 4 (1890–1971) MI 4 (1958–1979) CA 4 (1908–1947) NC 3 (1918–2020) KS 2 (1913–1975) MS 2 (1898–1930) TX 2 (1942–1950)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check