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 1880–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Wrightgreen2 sentences2024See In re Marriage of Wright, 841 P.2d 358, 361 (Colo. App. 1992) (holding that, even though the wife filed her affidavit after the deadline established by C.R.C.P. 121, section 1-22, the rule permitted requests to be filed “within such greater time as the court may allow”). 2009C.R.C.P. 121 § l-22(2)(b) provides: “Any party seeking attorney fees under this practice standard shall file and serve a motion for attorney fees within 15 days of entry of judgment or such greater time as the court may allow.” (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, “a party’s failure to request an extension of time does not preclude a trial *516 court from considering a request for an award of costs and fees which has been filed beyond the 15-day deadline.” In re Marriage of Wright, 841 P.2d 358, 361 (Colo.App.1992). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pozogreen1 sentence2019See 746 P.2d 523, 525-30 (Colo. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Dillingham v. Greeley Publishing Co.green1 sentence2009Although in its order the trial court expressed concern that significant time had elapsed from the date of the accident to the filing of the complaint, the complaint was filed within the applicable three-year statute of limitations. § 13-80-101(l)(n)(I), C.R.S. 2008; see Dillingham v. Greeley Publ’g Co., 701 P.2d 27, 32 (Colo.1985) (complaint filed one day before the statute of limitations expired is timely and Colorado law permits a reasonable time thereafter in which to serve a defendant). | 1 | 1 |
People in Interest of RFAgreen1 sentence2009See C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-10 Committee Comment (“The purpose [of the practice standard] is to encourage prosecution of pending cases .... ” (emphasis added)); People in Interest of R.F.A., 744 P.2d 1202, 1203-04 (Colo.App.1987) (“C.R.C.P. 121 §§ 1-10 and 1-15 set forth the procedures by which cause must be shown to retain a case on the trial court’s docket ....” (emphasis added)); see also C.R.C.P. 41(b)(2) (actions “not prosecuted or brought to trial with due diligence” may be dismissed (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
Major v. Chons Bros., Inc.green1 sentence2007See Phillips v. Watkins, 166 P.3d 197, 199 (Colo.App.2007); see also Major v. Chons Bros., Inc., 53 P.3d 781, 788 (Colo.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Watkinsgreen1 sentence2007See Phillips v. Watkins, 166 P.3d 197, 199 (Colo.App.2007); see also Major v. Chons Bros., Inc., 53 P.3d 781, 788 (Colo.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
P & M Vending Co., Inc. v. HALF SHELL, ETC.
green
2 sentences2007Relying on P & M Vending Co. v. Half Shell of Boston, Inc., 41 Colo.App. 78 , 579 P.2d 93 (1978), plaintiff argues that counsel's affidavit setting forth the total amount of fees, along with his assurance that his billing rate was reasonable, was sufficient to comply with the practice standard. 2007Relying on P & M Vending Co. v. Half Shell of Boston, Inc., 41 Colo.App. 78 , 579 P.2d 93 (1978), plaintiff argues that counsel's affidavit setting forth the total amount of fees, along with his assurance that his billing rate was reasonable, was sufficient to comply with the practice standard. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Stevens v. Allman
green
1 sentence1880Hughes v. Washington, 68 Ill. 245 . | 1 | 1880–1880 |
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.