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 1931–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Vigilgreen1 sentence2012Ultimately, the test applied to a challenge for cause is whether the juror "would render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence presented at trial and the instrue-tions given by the court." People v. Vigil, 718 P.2d 496, 500-01 (Colo.1986) (citing People v. Abbott, 690 P.2d 1263, 1267 (Colo.1984), and People v. Wright, 672 P.2d 518 (Colo. 1983)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Abbottgreen1 sentence2012Ultimately, the test applied to a challenge for cause is whether the juror "would render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence presented at trial and the instrue-tions given by the court." People v. Vigil, 718 P.2d 496, 500-01 (Colo.1986) (citing People v. Abbott, 690 P.2d 1263, 1267 (Colo.1984), and People v. Wright, 672 P.2d 518 (Colo. 1983)). | 1 | 1 |
The PEOPLE v. Glovergreen2 sentences1990See People v. Glover, 49 Ill.2d 78 , 273 N.E.2d 367 (1971). 1990See People v. Glover, 49 Ill.2d 78 , 273 N.E.2d 367 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sisneros
green
2 sentences2018True, we have said that the test for waiver is "whether the [privilege-holder] has injected her physical or mental condition into the case as the basis of a claim or an affirmative defense." Sisneros , 55 P.3d at 801 . 2018True, we have said that the test for waiver is “whether the [privilege-holder] has injected her physical or mental condition into the case as the basis of a claim or an affirmative defense.” Sisneros, 55 P.3d at 801 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Wright
green
1 sentence2012Ultimately, the test applied to a challenge for cause is whether the juror "would render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence presented at trial and the instrue-tions given by the court." People v. Vigil, 718 P.2d 496, 500-01 (Colo.1986) (citing People v. Abbott, 690 P.2d 1263, 1267 (Colo.1984), and People v. Wright, 672 P.2d 518 (Colo. 1983)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lemon v. Kurtzman
red
2 sentences1996Id. at 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. at 2111 . 15 A government regulation that fails to satisfy the test is in violation of the Establishment Clause. 1996Id. at 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. at 2111 . 15 A government regulation that fails to satisfy the test is in violation of the Establishment Clause. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Lucero
green
1 sentence1990However, for the following reasons, we conclude that the test and analysis set forth in People v. Lucero, supra, should apply: First, the nature of the inquiry, although for a different purpose, is invasive and thus accompanied by the same possible emotional trauma, embarrassment, or intimidation as experienced with a psychological exam; second, in states in which this issue has been raised, the courts have held that only upon the defendant’s presentation of a compelling reason will such an examination be ordered. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Carnley v. Cochran
green
2 sentences1968In Carney v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 , 82 S.Ct. 884 , 8 L.Ed 2d 70, a test of waiver of counsel was reaffirmed as an intelligent and understanding rejection. 1968In Carney v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 , 82 S.Ct. 884 , 8 L.Ed 2d 70, a test of waiver of counsel was reaffirmed as an intelligent and understanding rejection. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Fairbanks v. . Sargent
green
2 sentences1931It has been said that “the test is an inquiry whether the debtor would be justified in paying the debt or the portion contracted about, to the person claiming to be assignee.” Fairbanks v. Sargent, 117 N. Y. 320, 330 , 22 N. E. 1039 , 6 L. 1931It has been said that “the test is an inquiry whether the debtor would be justified in paying the debt or the portion contracted about, to the person claiming to be assignee.” Fairbanks v. Sargent, 117 N. Y. 320, 330 , 22 N. E. 1039 , 6 L. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.