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 1985–2004 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Co. v. City of Thorntongreen2 sentences2004However, “a [specificity] requirement, properly applied, does not undercut a desirable degree of flexibility.” Tri-State Generation & Transmission Co. v. City of Thornton, supra, 647 P.2d at 678 ; see also Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Conder, supra, 927 P.2d at 1348 (“broad criteria such as ‘[c]ompatability with the surrounding area’ and ‘harmony with the character of the neighborhood’ when applied in conjunction with more specific criteria relating to utilities and traffic” satisfy the specificity requirement) (quoting Tri-State, supra, 647 P.2d at 678-79 ). 2004However, “a [specificity] requirement, properly applied, does not undercut a desirable degree of flexibility.” Tri-State Generation & Transmission Co. v. City of Thornton, supra, 647 P.2d at 678 ; see also Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Conder, supra, 927 P.2d at 1348 (“broad criteria such as ‘[c]ompatability with the surrounding area’ and ‘harmony with the character of the neighborhood’ when applied in conjunction with more specific criteria relating to utilities and traffic” satisfy the specificity requirement) (quoting Tri-State, supra, 647 P.2d at 678-79 ). | 1 | 2 |
Board of County Commissioners v. Condergreen1 sentence2004However, “a [specificity] requirement, properly applied, does not undercut a desirable degree of flexibility.” Tri-State Generation & Transmission Co. v. City of Thornton, supra, 647 P.2d at 678 ; see also Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Conder, supra, 927 P.2d at 1348 (“broad criteria such as ‘[c]ompatability with the surrounding area’ and ‘harmony with the character of the neighborhood’ when applied in conjunction with more specific criteria relating to utilities and traffic” satisfy the specificity requirement) (quoting Tri-State, supra, 647 P.2d at 678-79 ). | 1 | 1 |
Reves v. Ernst & Younggreen1 sentence1997Id. at 168-69, 113 S.Ct. at 1163. | 1 | 1 |
Chidester v. Eastern Gas & Fuel Associatesgreen1 sentence1997See Chidester v. Eastern Gas & Fuel Associates, 859 P.2d 222 (Colo.App. 1993) (promise, made to induce employees to transfer to division, that they would have five years and a minimum specific budget to recuperate division enforceable); Tuttle v. ANR Freight System, Inc., 797 P.2d 825 (Colo.App.1990) (employee handbook’s statement of no gender discrimination and specific method of determining wage rate support female employee’s wage claim). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit
green
2 sentences1997Id. at 168-69 , 113 S.Ct. at 1163 . 1997Id. at 168-69 , 113 S.Ct. at 1163 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tuttle v. ANR Freight System, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997See Chidester v. Eastern Gas & Fuel Associates, 859 P.2d 222 (Colo.App. 1993) (promise, made to induce employees to transfer to division, that they would have five years and a minimum specific budget to recuperate division enforceable); Tuttle v. ANR Freight System, Inc., 797 P.2d 825 (Colo.App.1990) (employee handbook’s statement of no gender discrimination and specific method of determining wage rate support female employee’s wage claim). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Cottrell v. City & County of Denver
green
2 sentences1996In holding legislative bodies to this additional standard, courts "protect against unnecessary and uncontrolled exercise of discretionary power." Cottrell, 636 P.2d at 709 . [14] Still, the specificity requirement, "properly applied, does not undercut a desirable degree of flexibility." Tri-State, 647 P.2d at 678 . 1996In holding legislative bodies to this additional standard, courts “protect against unnecessary and uncontrolled exercise of discretionary power.” Cottrell, 636 P.2d at 709 . 14 Still; the specificity requirement, “properly applied, does not undercut a desirable degree of flexibility.” Tri-State, 647 P.2d at 678 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Beigel v. People
green
1 sentence1986Taken together the jury's findings met the specificity requirement of the violent crime statute. 10 Cf. *1106 Beigel v. People, 683 P.2d 1188 (Colo.1984); Ramirez v. People, 682 P.2d 1181 (Colo.1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ramirez v. People
green
1 sentence1986Taken together the jury's findings met the specificity requirement of the violent crime statute. 10 Cf. *1106 Beigel v. People, 683 P.2d 1188 (Colo.1984); Ramirez v. People, 682 P.2d 1181 (Colo.1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Jenkins v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1985In Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 , 94 S.Ct. 2750 , 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974), for example, the Court made clear that, while the examples given in Miller of material properly subject to regulation by the state were not meant to be exhaustive, they were intended to indicate the “substantive constitutional limitations, deriving from the First Amendment, on the type of material” that could be proscribed. 1985In Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 , 94 S.Ct. 2750 , 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974), for example, the Court made clear that, while the examples given in Miller of material properly subject to regulation by the state were not meant to be exhaustive, they were intended to indicate the “substantive constitutional limitations, deriving from the First Amendment, on the type of material” that could be proscribed. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.