6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
City and County of Denver v. Crandallgreen2 sentences2015"Complying with the notice of claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit." Gallagher v. Bd. of Trs. for Univ. of N. Colo., 54 P.3d 386 , 391 (Colo.2002) ; accord § 24-10-109(1) ("[F]ailure of compliance shall forever bar any such action."). ¶ 19 "The trial court is the pre-trial fact-finder to determine whether notice was timely filed." Crandall, 161 P.3d at 632 . "[T]he plaintiff must carry the burden of proving jurisdictional facts adequate to support subject matter jurisdiction." Id. *578 ¶ 20 Here, the district court concluded, and we agree, that plaintiff failed to carry his burden to 2015"Complying with the notice of claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit." Gallagher v. Bd. of Trs. for Univ. of N. Colo., 54 P.3d 386 , 391 (Colo.2002) ; accord § 24-10-109(1) ("[F]ailure of compliance shall forever bar any such action."). ¶ 19 "The trial court is the pre-trial fact-finder to determine whether notice was timely filed." Crandall, 161 P.3d at 632 . "[T]he plaintiff must carry the burden of proving jurisdictional facts adequate to support subject matter jurisdiction." Id. *578 ¶ 20 Here, the district court concluded, and we agree, that plaintiff failed to carry his burden to | 1 | 1 |
Isbill Associates, Inc. v. City & County of Denvergreen1 sentence2007As opposed to strict compliance, "substantial compliance" has been interpreted by a division of this court to mean that a claimant must "make a good faith effort to include within the written notice, to the extent reasonably possible, each item of information listed [by the statute]." Crandall v. City & County of Denver, 143 P.3d 1105, 1108 (Colo. App.2006) (defining substantial compliance in the context of a written notice of claim required under the Governmental Immunity Act); see Isbill Associates, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 666 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Colo. App.1983) (agreeing with trial co | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Wolson v. Kellygreen2 sentences2007As opposed to strict compliance, "substantial compliance" has been interpreted by a division of this court to mean that a claimant must "make a good faith effort to include within the written notice, to the extent reasonably possible, each item of information listed [by the statute]." Crandall v. City & County of Denver, 143 P.3d 1105, 1108 (Colo. App.2006) (defining substantial compliance in the context of a written notice of claim required under the Governmental Immunity Act); see Isbill Associates, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 666 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Colo. App.1983) (agreeing with trial co 2007As opposed to strict compliance, "substantial compliance" has been interpreted by a division of this court to mean that a claimant must "make a good faith effort to include within the written notice, to the extent reasonably possible, each item of information listed [by the statute]." Crandall v. City & County of Denver, 143 P.3d 1105, 1108 (Colo. App.2006) (defining substantial compliance in the context of a written notice of claim required under the Governmental Immunity Act); see Isbill Associates, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 666 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Colo. App.1983) (agreeing with trial co | 1 | 1 |
Crandall v. City and County of Denvergreen1 sentence2007As opposed to strict compliance, "substantial compliance" has been interpreted by a division of this court to mean that a claimant must "make a good faith effort to include within the written notice, to the extent reasonably possible, each item of information listed [by the statute]." Crandall v. City & County of Denver, 143 P.3d 1105, 1108 (Colo. App.2006) (defining substantial compliance in the context of a written notice of claim required under the Governmental Immunity Act); see Isbill Associates, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 666 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Colo. App.1983) (agreeing with trial co | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jacobsgreen2 sentences2007As opposed to strict compliance, "substantial compliance" has been interpreted by a division of this court to mean that a claimant must "make a good faith effort to include within the written notice, to the extent reasonably possible, each item of information listed [by the statute]." Crandall v. City & County of Denver, 143 P.3d 1105, 1108 (Colo. App.2006) (defining substantial compliance in the context of a written notice of claim required under the Governmental Immunity Act); see Isbill Associates, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 666 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Colo. App.1983) (agreeing with trial co 2007As opposed to strict compliance, "substantial compliance" has been interpreted by a division of this court to mean that a claimant must "make a good faith effort to include within the written notice, to the extent reasonably possible, each item of information listed [by the statute]." Crandall v. City & County of Denver, 143 P.3d 1105, 1108 (Colo. App.2006) (defining substantial compliance in the context of a written notice of claim required under the Governmental Immunity Act); see Isbill Associates, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 666 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Colo. App.1983) (agreeing with trial co | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. McCormickgreen1 sentence1959Colo. See Thompson v. McCormick, 138 Colo. 434, 335 (2d) 265. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gallagher v. Board of Trustees for the University of Northern Colorado
green
1 sentence2015"Complying with the notice of claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit." Gallagher v. Bd. of Trs. for Univ. of N. Colo., 54 P.3d 386 , 391 (Colo.2002) ; accord § 24-10-109(1) ("[F]ailure of compliance shall forever bar any such action."). ¶ 19 "The trial court is the pre-trial fact-finder to determine whether notice was timely filed." Crandall, 161 P.3d at 632 . "[T]he plaintiff must carry the burden of proving jurisdictional facts adequate to support subject matter jurisdiction." Id. *578 ¶ 20 Here, the district court concluded, and we agree, that plaintiff failed to carry his burden to | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Antonopoulos v. Town of Telluride
green
2 sentences1980Section 24-10-109(1), C.R.S. 1973 requires that any person who asserts a claim for personal injuries inflicted by a public entity must file a written notice of the claim within ninety days after the date of the discovery of the injury. 1 In Antonopoulos v. Town of Telluride, 187 Colo. 392 , 532 P.2d 346 (1975), however, we held that the notice requirement was tolled for the period in which the claimant was “laboring under any of the generally recognized forms of disability as defined in ‘Persons Under Disability Act’ C.R.S. 1963, 87-2-1(1). . . .” That section has been reenacted as section 13- 1980Section 24-10-109(1), C.R.S. 1973 requires that any person who asserts a claim for personal injuries inflicted by a public entity must file a written notice of the claim within ninety days after the date of the discovery of the injury. 1 In Antonopoulos v. Town of Telluride, 187 Colo. 392 , 532 P.2d 346 (1975), however, we held that the notice requirement was tolled for the period in which the claimant was “laboring under any of the generally recognized forms of disability as defined in ‘Persons Under Disability Act’ C.R.S. 1963, 87-2-1(1). . . .” That section has been reenacted as section 13- | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Barclay v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.
green
1 sentence1971As stated in Barclay v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 46 Colo. 558 , 105 P. 865 : "We are of the opinion that by the language of the contract an immediate notice of the accident and also notice of claim for damages as stipulated for are conditions precedent to the liability of the defendant, and without such notice or notices, or a legal excuse for the failure to give the same, the defendant cannot be held." The policy here required "immediate notice in writing." In Certified Indemnity Co. v. Thun, 165 Colo. 354 , 439 P.2d 28 , the term "immediate notice" was considered and defined as follo | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Certified Indemnity Company v. Thun
green
2 sentences1971As stated in Barclay v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 46 Colo. 558 , 105 P. 865 : "We are of the opinion that by the language of the contract an immediate notice of the accident and also notice of claim for damages as stipulated for are conditions precedent to the liability of the defendant, and without such notice or notices, or a legal excuse for the failure to give the same, the defendant cannot be held." The policy here required "immediate notice in writing." In Certified Indemnity Co. v. Thun, 165 Colo. 354 , 439 P.2d 28 , the term "immediate notice" was considered and defined as follo 1971As stated in Barclay v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 46 Colo. 558 , 105 P. 865 : "We are of the opinion that by the language of the contract an immediate notice of the accident and also notice of claim for damages as stipulated for are conditions precedent to the liability of the defendant, and without such notice or notices, or a legal excuse for the failure to give the same, the defendant cannot be held." The policy here required "immediate notice in writing." In Certified Indemnity Co. v. Thun, 165 Colo. 354 , 439 P.2d 28 , the term "immediate notice" was considered and defined as follo | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Higginbotham v. Oklahoma Portland Cement Co.
green
2 sentences1942Higginbotham, *539 v. Oklahoma Portland Cement Co., 155 Okla. 264 , 9 P. (2d) 15 . 1942Higginbotham, *539 v. Oklahoma Portland Cement Co., 155 Okla. 264 , 9 P. (2d) 15 . | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.