6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andersen v. Lindenbaumgreen2 sentences2015See Andersen v. Lindenbaum , 160 P.3d 237, 238 (Colo. 2007) (typographical error in letter constitutes reasonable explanation for incorrect date later attested to in deposition). ¶24       Accordingly, we conclude that the AUJ did not err when he denied Phillipsâ and Masterpieceâs second motion to dismiss. 4 III. 2015See Andersen v. Lindenbaum, 160 P.3d 237, 238 (Colo.2007) (typographical error in letter constitutes reasonable explanation for incorrect date later attested to in deposition). {24 Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ did not err when he denied Phillips' and Masterpiece's second motion to dismiss. 4 III, CADA Violation 125 Masterpiece contends that the ALJ erred in concluding that its refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was "because of" their sexual orientation. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Tolbertgreen1 sentence2020The rest of the Panel’s order correctly cites to section 8-42-107.2(4)(c), C.R.S. 2019. 7 an issue necessary to its judgment, the decision will preclude relitigation of that issue in a later action involving a party to the first case.” People v. Tolbert, 216 P.3d 1, 5 (Colo. App. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Capp v. People
neutral
2 sentences2004Capp v. People, 64 Colo. 58 , 170 P. 399 (1917)(reference in statute to one section, where another section was plainly intended, was subject to correction by the court); People v. Madden, supra (reference in statute to nonexistent section is merely a typographical error that may be corrected by the court, thereby allowing logical reading of statute). 2004Capp v. People, 64 Colo. 58 , 170 P. 399 (1917)(reference in statute to one section, where another section was plainly intended, was subject to correction by the court); People v. Madden, supra (reference in statute to nonexistent section is merely a typographical error that may be corrected by the court, thereby allowing logical reading of statute). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Madden
green
1 sentence2004Capp v. People, 64 Colo. 58 , 170 P. 399 (1917)(reference in statute to one section, where another section was plainly intended, was subject to correction by the court); People v. Madden, supra (reference in statute to nonexistent section is merely a typographical error that may be corrected by the court, thereby allowing logical reading of statute). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Curtis
green
1 sentence1992Defendant was denied ineffective assistance of counsel at trial...." [2] "We accordingly hold that ... the Strickland [ineffective assistance of counsel] standard should be applied in resolving the defendant's post-conviction challenge to his 1977 conviction." Id. [3] " Curtis ... did not formulate the legal norm for resolving a pre- Curtis violation of the right to testify predicated on a deficient waiver." Maj. op. at 323. [4] Chief Judge John-David Sullivan presided at the December 29, 1988, hearing, but he recused himself the next day. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Board of County Commissioners v. City & County of Denver
green
2 sentences1979In Board of County Commissioners v. Denver, 193 Colo. 325 , 566 P.2d 335 (1977), the Court held that a typographical error in a description attached to a petition (which was corrected on the signature page of the petition) did not invalidate an annexation ordinance where the school board resolution, the council resolution, and the ordinance all contained the correct description. 1979In Board of County Commissioners v. Denver, 193 Colo. 325 , 566 P.2d 335 (1977), the Court held that a typographical error in a description attached to a petition (which was corrected on the signature page of the petition) did not invalidate an annexation ordinance where the school board resolution, the council resolution, and the ordinance all contained the correct description. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.