6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
City & County of Broomfield v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co.green1 sentence2025We “do not consider constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal.” City & Cnty. of Broomfield v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 239 P.3d 1270, 1276 (Colo. 2010). ¶ 18 And to the extent the recreational community asks us to review the constitutionality of the 2020 version of what is now Rule 1.7 — promulgated to interpret the old statutory definition of mobile home park — that issue is also moot. | 1 | 1 |
United Building & Constr. Trades Council of Camden Cty. v. Mayor and Council of Camdengreen1 sentence2025Trades Council v. Mayor & Council, 465 U.S. 208, 213 (1984) (noting that the amendment of a municipal ordinance to delete a residency requirement mooted the constitutional challenge to that requirement). ¶ 17 To the extent the recreational community now asks us to issue an opinion on the constitutionality of the 2024 statutory amendment that modified the definition of mobile home park, that issue wasn’t presented to the district court. | 1 | 1 |
Eckart v. INDUS. CLAIMS APPEALS OFFICEgreen1 sentence1992See Eckart v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 775 P.2d 97 (Colo.App.1989); Zelingers v. Industrial Commission, 679 P.2d 608 (Colo.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1990See Jones v. People, 155 Colo. 148 , 393 P.2d 366 (1964) (courts may not assume a legislative intent which would vary the words used by the General Assembly). 1990See Jones v. People, 155 Colo. 148 , 393 P.2d 366 (1964) (courts may not assume a legislative intent which would vary the words used by the General Assembly). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City and County of Denver v. State
green
2 sentences1992The Panel argues that because the residency rule has withstood a constitutional challenge and because our supreme court has recognized that the beneficent policies and purposes of the rule are to provide for the further betterment of a municipality, see Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764 (Colo.1990), any violation of the rule should result in a presumption of harm to employer’s interests. 1992In determining whether the state regulatory scheme preempts the Greeley *1067 ordinances, we draw upon the preemption analysis used by this court in Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764 , where we considered four factors in resolving whether the state’s interest in prohibiting a municipality from adopting a residency requirement for municipal employment was sufficient to justify preemption of an inconsistent home-rule residency requirement as a condition of municipal employment. | 2 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Bowen
green
2 sentences1999People v. Bowen, 231 Cal.App.3d 783 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 (1991). 1999People v. Bowen, 231 Cal.App.3d 783 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 35 (1991). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Zelingers v. INDUS. COM'N OF STATE OF COLO.
green
1 sentence1992See Eckart v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 775 P.2d 97 (Colo.App.1989); Zelingers v. Industrial Commission, 679 P.2d 608 (Colo.App.1984). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Johnson v. State ex rel. Davis
neutral
2 sentences1983One of the earliest cases upholding a residency requirement for policemen is Johnson v. State, 132 Ala. 43 , 31 So. 493 (1901). 1983One of the earliest cases upholding a residency requirement for policemen is Johnson v. State, 132 Ala. 43 , 31 So. 493 (1901). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.