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 2001–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Aurora v. Zwerdlingergreen2 sentences2026See Zwerdlinger , 571 P.2d at 1077. 18 Additionally, a municipality's amendment of existing contractual obligations is administrative in nature and not subject to initiative because an amendment merely carries out existing legislative policy. ¶34 Here, when the Town passed its PUD enabling ordinance, it exercised its legislative power: It set a permanent standard for PUD applications within the Town. 2026See Zwerdlinger , 571 P.2d at 1077 . 19 Additionally, a municipality's amendment of existing contractual obligations is administrative in nature and not subject to initiative because an amendment merely carries out existing legislative policy. ¶34 Here, when the Town passed its PUD enabling ordinance, it exercised its legislative power: It set a permanent standard for PUD applications within the Town. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Garciagreen1 sentence2014See Garcia, 89 P.3d at 520 ("[Blecause defendant is no longer in the United States and is subject to a permanent bar on attempted reentry into this country, he will not serve his sentence here, and thus, the outcome of the appeal has no practical effect upon him."). | 1 | 1 |
FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUN. v. Romergreen1 sentence2004See Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Romer, 921 P.2d 84, 88 (Colo.App.1996)(appellate courts will not generally render opinions on merits of appeal when issues become moot because of subsequent events; a case is moot when judgment would have no practical effect upon existing controversy). | 1 | 1 |
Longmont Toyota v. INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALSgreen2 sentences2004The court of appeals held that " § 8-42-105(4) is to be construed as a permanent bar to receipt of temporary disability benefits when a claimant is responsible for his or her separation from employment and the separation is for causes within the employee's control, but unrelated to the industrial injury." Longmont Toyota, 85 P.3d at 551. 2004It held that the termination statutes are "to be construed as a permanent bar to receipt of temporary disability benefits when a claimant is responsible for his or her separation from employment and the separation is for causes within the employee's control, but unrelated to the industrial injury." Id. _ In addressing the legislature's intent, the court of appeals turned to Monfort v. Husson, 725 P.2d 67 (Colo.App.1986), and the introduction of employee fault for job termination in ascertaining eligibility for benefits. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Monfort of Colorado v. Husson
green
2 sentences2004It held that the termination statutes are "to be construed as a permanent bar to receipt of temporary disability benefits when a claimant is responsible for his or her separation from employment and the separation is for causes within the employee's control, but unrelated to the industrial injury." Id. _ In addressing the legislature's intent, the court of appeals turned to Monfort v. Husson, 725 P.2d 67 (Colo.App.1986), and the introduction of employee fault for job termination in ascertaining eligibility for benefits. 2004The issue in Monfort was whether an injured employee who "has not reached maximum medical improvement, and is terminated from the employment out of which the injury arose, is eligible to receive temporary partial disability benefits during subsequent periods of wage loss." 725 P.2d at 69 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Laurel Manor Care Center v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
neutral
1 sentence2001In that case, the Panel had awarded TTD benefits, stating its concern that "the PDM holding would be eviscerated if a claimant's loss of modified employment constitutes a permanent bar to temporary disability benefits." Laurel Manor Care, supra, 964 P.2d at 591 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.