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 1 courts 1991–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wester Holdings Partnership v. Reecegreen2 sentences2022A groundless document is “one for which a proponent can advance no rational argument based on evidence or the law to support the claim.” Westar Holdings P’ship v. Reece, 991 P.2d 328, 330 (Colo. App. 1999). 2009Pursuant to section 38-85-201(8), C.R.S. 2008, a "spurious document" means "any document that is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim, or is otherwise patently invalid." Westar Holdings P'ship v. Reece, 991 P.2d 328, 330 (Colo.App.1999). | 2 | 3 |
Henisse v. First Transit, Inc.green1 sentence2015Henisse v. First Transit, Inc., 247 P.3d 577, 579 (Colo.2011); Barnhart, ¶ 14. 31 Section 38-85-201(8) defines a "spurious document" as "any document that is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim, or is otherwise patently invalid." If such a document is "recorded or filed," and "affect[s]" a person's "real or personal property," that person may bring an action under section 88-85-204. | 1 | 1 |
Pierce v. Francisgreen1 sentence2013In other words, a document is spurious "if its proponent can offer no rational legal or factual support for its validity." Rossi v. Osage Highland Dev., LLC, 219 P.8d 319, 328 (Colo.App.2009) (citing Pierce v. Francis, 194 P.3d 505, 509 (Colo.App.2008); Westar Holdings P'ship, 991 P.2d at 330 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Forgeygreen1 sentence2008The statute only prohibits, as relevant here, the recording of documents that the person knows or has reason to know are forged, are groundless, contain a material misstatement or false claim, or are otherwise invalid. § 38-35-109(3); see Forgey, 770 P.2d at 784 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Soneff v. Harlan
green
2 sentences1991Any grantee or other person purportedly benefitted by a recorded document which creates a lien against real *824 property and is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim, or is otherwise invalid who willfully refuses to release such document of record upon request of the owner of the real property affected shall be liable to such owner for the damages and attorney fees provided for in this subsection.” See Soneff v. Harlan, 712 P.2d 1084 (Colo. App.1985). 1991Any grantee or other person purportedly benefitted by a recorded document which creates a lien against real *824 property and is forged or groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim, or is otherwise invalid who willfully refuses to release such document of record upon request of the owner of the real property affected shall be liable to such owner for the damages and attorney fees provided for in this subsection.” See Soneff v. Harlan, 712 P.2d 1084 (Colo. App.1985). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.