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 1964–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Loveland Camp No. 83 v. Woodmen Building & Benevolent Ass'ngreen2 sentences2025“The essential element of laches is unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under the circumstances, usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted.” Hickerson v. Vessels, 2014 CO 2, ¶ 12 (quoting Loveland Camp No. 83, W.O.W. v. Woodmen Bldg. & Benevolent Ass’n, 116 P.2d 195, 199 (Colo. 1941)). 2014Accordingly, we turn to whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that laches as a defense to Vessels' claim is precluded by the separation of powers doctrine. 112 "The essential element of lach-es is unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under the circumstances, usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted." 4 Loveland Camp No. 83 v. Woodmen Bldg & Benevolent Ass'n, 108 Colo. 297 , 116 P.2d 195, 199 (1941); see also Calvat v. Juhan, 119 Colo. 561 , 206 P.2d 600, 604 (1949); Robbins v. People, 107 P.3d 384, 388 (Colo.2005). | 2 | 5 |
Western Motor Rebuilders, Inc. v. Carlsongreen2 sentences2014Motor Rebuilders, Inc. v. Carlson, 138 Colo. 404 , 418-19, 335 P.2d 272 , 280 (1959) ("The essential element of laches is an unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under circumstances usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted."); accord O'Byrne v. Scofield, 120 Colo. 572 , 578, 212 P.2d 867 , 871 (1949) ("The basis of laches in equity is unreasonable delay and lack of diligence extending for so long a time or under such circumstances that it would be inequitable to grant relief."); Graff v. Portland Town & Mineral Co., 12 Colo.App. 106 , 112, 54 P. 854 , 85 2014Motor Rebuilders, Inc. v. Carlson, 138 Colo. 404 , 418-19, 335 P.2d 272 , 280 (1959) ("The essential element of laches is an unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under circumstances usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted."); accord O'Byrne v. Scofield, 120 Colo. 572 , 578, 212 P.2d 867 , 871 (1949) ("The basis of laches in equity is unreasonable delay and lack of diligence extending for so long a time or under such circumstances that it would be inequitable to grant relief."); Graff v. Portland Town & Mineral Co., 12 Colo.App. 106 , 112, 54 P. 854 , 85 | 1 | 4 |
City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co.green1 sentence2025“The elements of laches are: (1) full knowledge of the facts; (2) unreasonable delay in the assertion of [an] available remedy; and 3 (3) intervening reliance by and prejudice to another.” City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1, 73 (Colo. 1996) (quoting Manor Vail Condo. | 1 | 1 |
Hickerson v. Vesselsgreen1 sentence2025“The essential element of laches is unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under the circumstances, usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted.” Hickerson v. Vessels, 2014 CO 2, ¶ 12 (quoting Loveland Camp No. 83, W.O.W. v. Woodmen Bldg. & Benevolent Ass’n, 116 P.2d 195, 199 (Colo. 1941)). | 1 | 1 |
O'Byrne v. Scofieldgreen2 sentences2014Motor Rebuilders, Inc. v. Carlson, 138 Colo. 404 , 418-19, 335 P.2d 272 , 280 (1959) ("The essential element of laches is an unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under circumstances usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted."); accord O'Byrne v. Scofield, 120 Colo. 572 , 578, 212 P.2d 867 , 871 (1949) ("The basis of laches in equity is unreasonable delay and lack of diligence extending for so long a time or under such circumstances that it would be inequitable to grant relief."); Graff v. Portland Town & Mineral Co., 12 Colo.App. 106 , 112, 54 P. 854 , 85 2014Motor Rebuilders, Inc. v. Carlson, 138 Colo. 404 , 418-19, 335 P.2d 272 , 280 (1959) ("The essential element of laches is an unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under circumstances usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted."); accord O'Byrne v. Scofield, 120 Colo. 572 , 578, 212 P.2d 867 , 871 (1949) ("The basis of laches in equity is unreasonable delay and lack of diligence extending for so long a time or under such circumstances that it would be inequitable to grant relief."); Graff v. Portland Town & Mineral Co., 12 Colo.App. 106 , 112, 54 P. 854 , 85 | 1 | 1 |
Graff v. Portland Town & Mineral Co.green1 sentence2014Motor Rebuilders, Inc. v. Carlson, 138 Colo. 404 , 418-19, 335 P.2d 272 , 280 (1959) ("The essential element of laches is an unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under circumstances usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted."); accord O'Byrne v. Scofield, 120 Colo. 572 , 578, 212 P.2d 867 , 871 (1949) ("The basis of laches in equity is unreasonable delay and lack of diligence extending for so long a time or under such circumstances that it would be inequitable to grant relief."); Graff v. Portland Town & Mineral Co., 12 Colo.App. 106 , 112, 54 P. 854 , 85 | 1 | 1 |
Dubois v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2014See Manor Vail, 199 Colo. at 64 , 604 P.2d at 1170 . 2 Although Lanari does not cite Manor Vail, he relies on Norman v. Boyer, 111 Colo. 531 , 535, 143 P.2d 1017 , 1018-19 (1943), which stated that laches is available as a defense when it is accompanied by changes in the position of the parties that " 'render it inequitable to permit the enforcement of rights concerning which otherwise there might be no difficulty' " (quoting Du Bois v. Clark, 12 Colo.App. 220 , 231, 55 P. 750 , 754 (1898) ). ¶ 22 In contrast, other early Colorado cases that addressed the doctrine of laches agreed that the ess | 1 | 1 |
Calvat v. Juhangreen2 sentences2014Accordingly, we turn to whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that laches as a defense to Vessels' claim is precluded by the separation of powers doctrine. 112 "The essential element of lach-es is unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under the circumstances, usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted." 4 Loveland Camp No. 83 v. Woodmen Bldg & Benevolent Ass'n, 108 Colo. 297 , 116 P.2d 195, 199 (1941); see also Calvat v. Juhan, 119 Colo. 561 , 206 P.2d 600, 604 (1949); Robbins v. People, 107 P.3d 384, 388 (Colo.2005). 2014Accordingly, we turn to whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that laches as a defense to Vessels' claim is precluded by the separation of powers doctrine. 112 "The essential element of lach-es is unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under the circumstances, usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted." 4 Loveland Camp No. 83 v. Woodmen Bldg & Benevolent Ass'n, 108 Colo. 297 , 116 P.2d 195, 199 (1941); see also Calvat v. Juhan, 119 Colo. 561 , 206 P.2d 600, 604 (1949); Robbins v. People, 107 P.3d 384, 388 (Colo.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Norman v. Boyergreen2 sentences2014See Manor Vail, 199 Colo. at 64 , 604 P.2d at 1170 . 2 Although Lanari does not cite Manor Vail, he relies on Norman v. Boyer, 111 Colo. 531 , 535, 143 P.2d 1017 , 1018-19 (1943), which stated that laches is available as a defense when it is accompanied by changes in the position of the parties that " 'render it inequitable to permit the enforcement of rights concerning which otherwise there might be no difficulty' " (quoting Du Bois v. Clark, 12 Colo.App. 220 , 231, 55 P. 750 , 754 (1898) ). ¶ 22 In contrast, other early Colorado cases that addressed the doctrine of laches agreed that the ess 2014See Manor Vail, 199 Colo. at 64 , 604 P.2d at 1170 . 2 Although Lanari does not cite Manor Vail, he relies on Norman v. Boyer, 111 Colo. 531 , 535, 143 P.2d 1017 , 1018-19 (1943), which stated that laches is available as a defense when it is accompanied by changes in the position of the parties that " 'render it inequitable to permit the enforcement of rights concerning which otherwise there might be no difficulty' " (quoting Du Bois v. Clark, 12 Colo.App. 220 , 231, 55 P. 750 , 754 (1898) ). ¶ 22 In contrast, other early Colorado cases that addressed the doctrine of laches agreed that the ess | 1 | 1 |
Pedrosa v. District Court of San Juangreen1 sentence2014See Manor Vail, 199 Colo. at 64 , 604 P.2d at 1170 . 2 Although Lanari does not cite Manor Vail, he relies on Norman v. Boyer, 111 Colo. 531 , 535, 143 P.2d 1017 , 1018-19 (1943), which stated that laches is available as a defense when it is accompanied by changes in the position of the parties that " 'render it inequitable to permit the enforcement of rights concerning which otherwise there might be no difficulty' " (quoting Du Bois v. Clark, 12 Colo.App. 220 , 231, 55 P. 750 , 754 (1898) ). ¶ 22 In contrast, other early Colorado cases that addressed the doctrine of laches agreed that the ess | 1 | 1 |
Manor Vail Condominium Ass'n v. Town of Vailgreen2 sentences2014See Manor Vail, 199 Colo. at 64 , 604 P.2d at 1170 . 2 Although Lanari does not cite Manor Vail, he relies on Norman v. Boyer, 111 Colo. 531 , 535, 143 P.2d 1017 , 1018-19 (1943), which stated that laches is available as a defense when it is accompanied by changes in the position of the parties that " 'render it inequitable to permit the enforcement of rights concerning which otherwise there might be no difficulty' " (quoting Du Bois v. Clark, 12 Colo.App. 220 , 231, 55 P. 750 , 754 (1898) ). ¶ 22 In contrast, other early Colorado cases that addressed the doctrine of laches agreed that the ess 2014See Manor Vail, 199 Colo. at 64 , 604 P.2d at 1170 . 2 Although Lanari does not cite Manor Vail, he relies on Norman v. Boyer, 111 Colo. 531 , 535, 143 P.2d 1017 , 1018-19 (1943), which stated that laches is available as a defense when it is accompanied by changes in the position of the parties that " 'render it inequitable to permit the enforcement of rights concerning which otherwise there might be no difficulty' " (quoting Du Bois v. Clark, 12 Colo.App. 220 , 231, 55 P. 750 , 754 (1898) ). ¶ 22 In contrast, other early Colorado cases that addressed the doctrine of laches agreed that the ess | 1 | 1 |
Robbins v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2014Accordingly, we turn to whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that laches as a defense to Vessels' claim is precluded by the separation of powers doctrine. 112 "The essential element of lach-es is unconscionable delay in enforcing a right under the circumstances, usually involving a prejudice to the one against whom the claim is asserted." 4 Loveland Camp No. 83 v. Woodmen Bldg & Benevolent Ass'n, 108 Colo. 297 , 116 P.2d 195, 199 (1941); see also Calvat v. Juhan, 119 Colo. 561 , 206 P.2d 600, 604 (1949); Robbins v. People, 107 P.3d 384, 388 (Colo.2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Divide Canal & Reservoir Co. v. Tenney
neutral
2 sentences1964Loveland Camp No. 83 v. Woodmen (1941), 108 Colo. 297 , 116 P. (2d) 195 .” In Canal and Reservoir v. Tenney, 57 Colo. 14 , 139 Pac. 1110 , it is stated: “It is settled law that if a party by conduct has intimated that he consents to an act which has been done, or will offer no opposition to it, although it could not have been lawfully done without his consent, and he thereby induces others to do that from which they otherwise might have abstained, he can not question the legality of the act he has so sanctioned to the prejudice of those who have acted on the fair inference to be drawn from his 1964Loveland Camp No. 83 v. Woodmen (1941), 108 Colo. 297 , 116 P. (2d) 195 .” In Canal and Reservoir v. Tenney, 57 Colo. 14 , 139 Pac. 1110 , it is stated: “It is settled law that if a party by conduct has intimated that he consents to an act which has been done, or will offer no opposition to it, although it could not have been lawfully done without his consent, and he thereby induces others to do that from which they otherwise might have abstained, he can not question the legality of the act he has so sanctioned to the prejudice of those who have acted on the fair inference to be drawn from his | 2 | 1964–1964 |
Greeley and Loveland Irrigation Co. v. McCloughan
green
2 sentences1964Loveland Camp No. 83 v. Woodmen (1941), 108 Colo. 297 , 116 P. (2d) 195 .” In Canal and Reservoir v. Tenney, 57 Colo. 14 , 139 Pac. 1110 , it is stated: “It is settled law that if a party by conduct has intimated that he consents to an act which has been done, or will offer no opposition to it, although it could not have been lawfully done without his consent, and he thereby induces others to do that from which they otherwise might have abstained, he can not question the legality of the act he has so sanctioned to the prejudice of those who have acted on the fair inference to be drawn from his 1964Loveland Camp No. 83 v. Woodmen (1941), 108 Colo. 297 , 116 P. (2d) 195 .” In Canal and Reservoir v. Tenney, 57 Colo. 14 , 139 Pac. 1110 , it is stated: “It is settled law that if a party by conduct has intimated that he consents to an act which has been done, or will offer no opposition to it, although it could not have been lawfully done without his consent, and he thereby induces others to do that from which they otherwise might have abstained, he can not question the legality of the act he has so sanctioned to the prejudice of those who have acted on the fair inference to be drawn from his | 2 | 1964–1964 |
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.