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 2004–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Riley v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2021See Cain v. People, 2014 CO 49, ¶ 13 (interpreting “the General Assembly’s inclusion of a single, specific, narrow exception to mean that the General Assembly intended that there be no other exceptions to the rule” generally set forth); Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218, 221 (Colo. 2004) 9 (“The presence of one exception is generally construed as excluding other exceptions.”). ¶ 18 If the General Assembly had intended to also except searches conducted pursuant to a warrant, it could have expressly said so. 2021Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. City of Aurora, 221 P.3d 399, 419 (Colo. 2009)(“When the General Assembly includes a provision in one section of a statute, but excludes the same provision from another section, we presume that the General Assembly did so purposefully.”); Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Sys. of S. Colo., 172 P.3d 888, 894 (Colo. 2007)(“We do not add words to the statute or subtract words from it.”); Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218, 221 (Colo. 2004)(“The presence of one exception is generally construed as excluding other exceptions.”); Beeghly v. Mack, 20 P.3d 610, 613 (Colo. 2001)(“U | 5 | 5 |
Lunsford v. Western States Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2007States Life Ins., 908 P.2d 79, 84 (Colo.1995))); Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218, 221 (Colo.2004) (the presence of one exception is generally construed as excluding other exceptions). 2007States Life Ins., 908 P.2d 79, 84 (Colo.1995)) ); Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218, 221 (Colo.2004) (the presence of one exception is generally construed as excluding other exceptions). | 2 | 2 |
Cain v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2021See Cain v. People, 2014 CO 49, ¶ 13 (interpreting “the General Assembly’s inclusion of a single, specific, narrow exception to mean that the General Assembly intended that there be no other exceptions to the rule” generally set forth); Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218, 221 (Colo. 2004) 9 (“The presence of one exception is generally construed as excluding other exceptions.”). ¶ 18 If the General Assembly had intended to also except searches conducted pursuant to a warrant, it could have expressly said so. | 1 | 1 |
Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems of Southern Coloradogreen1 sentence2021Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. City of Aurora, 221 P.3d 399, 419 (Colo. 2009)(“When the General Assembly includes a provision in one section of a statute, but excludes the same provision from another section, we presume that the General Assembly did so purposefully.”); Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Sys. of S. Colo., 172 P.3d 888, 894 (Colo. 2007)(“We do not add words to the statute or subtract words from it.”); Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218, 221 (Colo. 2004)(“The presence of one exception is generally construed as excluding other exceptions.”); Beeghly v. Mack, 20 P.3d 610, 613 (Colo. 2001)(“U | 1 | 1 |
Beeghly v. MacKgreen1 sentence2021Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. City of Aurora, 221 P.3d 399, 419 (Colo. 2009)(“When the General Assembly includes a provision in one section of a statute, but excludes the same provision from another section, we presume that the General Assembly did so purposefully.”); Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Sys. of S. Colo., 172 P.3d 888, 894 (Colo. 2007)(“We do not add words to the statute or subtract words from it.”); Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218, 221 (Colo. 2004)(“The presence of one exception is generally construed as excluding other exceptions.”); Beeghly v. Mack, 20 P.3d 610, 613 (Colo. 2001)(“U | 1 | 1 |
AC, IV v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2021Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. City of Aurora, 221 P.3d 399, 419 (Colo. 2009)(“When the General Assembly includes a provision in one section of a statute, but excludes the same provision from another section, we presume that the General Assembly did so purposefully.”); Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Sys. of S. Colo., 172 P.3d 888, 894 (Colo. 2007)(“We do not add words to the statute or subtract words from it.”); Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218, 221 (Colo. 2004)(“The presence of one exception is generally construed as excluding other exceptions.”); Beeghly v. Mack, 20 P.3d 610, 613 (Colo. 2001)(“U | 1 | 1 |
WELL AUGMENTATION SUBDISTRICT v. Auroragreen1 sentence2021Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. City of Aurora, 221 P.3d 399, 419 (Colo. 2009)(“When the General Assembly includes a provision in one section of a statute, but excludes the same provision from another section, we presume that the General Assembly did so purposefully.”); Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Sys. of S. Colo., 172 P.3d 888, 894 (Colo. 2007)(“We do not add words to the statute or subtract words from it.”); Riley v. People, 104 P.3d 218, 221 (Colo. 2004)(“The presence of one exception is generally construed as excluding other exceptions.”); Beeghly v. Mack, 20 P.3d 610, 613 (Colo. 2001)(“U | 1 | 1 |
People v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2004People v. Campbell, 885 P.2d 327, 329 (Colo.App.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.