6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
William J. Hunsaker, Jr. v. The People of the State of Coloradogreen1 sentence2025See People v. Hunsaker, 2020 COA 48, ¶ 10 , aff’d, 2021 CO 83 . ¶ 16 Based on these reasons and the record before us, we conclude that the postconviction court did not err by denying Moore’s motion. | 1 | 1 |
v. Hunsakergreen1 sentence2025See People v. Hunsaker, 2020 COA 48, ¶ 10 , aff’d, 2021 CO 83 . ¶ 16 Based on these reasons and the record before us, we conclude that the postconviction court did not err by denying Moore’s motion. | 1 | 1 |
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Steve TURMAN, Defendant-Appellantgreen1 sentence2014The court of appeals reasoned that the law regarding this alleged error was unsettled at the time of trial, and "[wlhen the state of the law is unclear[,] ... and only becomes clear as a result of later authority, the district court's error is perforce not plain." Id. at *3 (quoting United States v. Turman, 122 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nunngreen1 sentence2009See id. | 1 | 1 |
Mountain States Bank v. Irvingreen1 sentence2008See also § 15-12-104, C.R.S. 2007 (providing that after appointment of a personal representative, and before distribution, an action to enforce a claim against an estate is governed by the statutory procedures set forth in article 12 of title 15 relating to procedure in probate proceedings); Mountain States Bank v. Irvin, 809 P.2d 1113, 1116 (Colo.App.1991) (only the probate court has jurisdiction to enforce a claimed lien against estate property). | 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. Moore
green
2 sentences2014The court of appeals then chose to address Moore's claim, observing that: (1) the prosecution had not challenged Moore's raising of the claim on direct appeal, instead arguing that "a remand is unnecessary because this Court can conclude from the existing record that the trial court's advisement ... did not affect the defendant's decision to waive his right to testify"; (2) our decision in Bighm, which required such a claim to be raised via post-conviction motion, did not "cast the procedural issue as jurisdictional"; and (8) the court could resolve the issue without a fact-intensive inquiry. 2014The court of appeals reasoned that the law regarding this alleged error was unsettled at the time of trial, and "[wlhen the state of the law is unclear[,] ... and only becomes clear as a result of later authority, the district court's error is perforce not plain." Id. at *3 (quoting United States v. Turman, 122 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir.1997)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Bartowsheski
green
2 sentences1994The linchpin of the Moore analysis is thus the interpretation of § 18-l-408(5)(a) in People v. Bartowsheski, supra, and the rationale of Boulies v. People, supra: Like felony murder, “felony” first degree-assault requires proof of the very same elements essential to the charge of the predicate felony. 1994The linchpin of the Moore analysis is thus the interpretation of § 18-1-408(5)(a) in People v. Bartowsheski, supra , and the rationale of Boulies v. People, supra : Like felony murder, "felony" first degree-assault requires proof of the very same elements essential to the charge of the predicate felony. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Fraser v. Geist
green
1 sentence1969Rather than strictly apply Moore’s test, the court in Fraser v. Geist, 1 F.R.D. 267 , examined the complaint to determine whether the plaintiff had stated a good claim for either equitable or legal relief. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.