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.
5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. DeWittgreen2 sentences2005In re Estate of DeWitt, supra. In assessing a Contracts Clause violation, the inquiry is whether the change in law opérates as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship. 2005In re Estate of DeWitt, supra. In assessing a Contracts Clause violation, the inquiry is whether the change in law opérates as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship. | 1 | 3 |
Kuhn v. Stategreen2 sentences2012In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 858 ; Kuhn v. State, 924 P.2d 1053, 1059 (Colo.1996); Kilbourn, 971 P.2d at 287 ; see Energy Reserves Grp., 459 U.S. at 412, 416 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ; see also id. at 411 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ("In determining the extent of the impairment, we are to consider whether the industry the complaining party has entered has been regulated in the past."). €50 Plaintiffs argue. that any adverse change to the COLA in which they have a contractual right necessarily violates the Contract Clauses. 2012In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 858 ; Kuhn v. State, 924 P.2d 1053, 1059 (Colo.1996); Kilbourn, 971 P.2d at 287 ; see Energy Reserves Grp., 459 U.S. at 412, 416 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ; see also id. at 411 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ("In determining the extent of the impairment, we are to consider whether the industry the complaining party has entered has been regulated in the past."). €50 Plaintiffs argue. that any adverse change to the COLA in which they have a contractual right necessarily violates the Contract Clauses. | 1 | 1 |
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.green2 sentences2012In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 858 ; Kuhn v. State, 924 P.2d 1053, 1059 (Colo.1996); Kilbourn, 971 P.2d at 287 ; see Energy Reserves Grp., 459 U.S. at 412, 416 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ; see also id. at 411 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ("In determining the extent of the impairment, we are to consider whether the industry the complaining party has entered has been regulated in the past."). €50 Plaintiffs argue. that any adverse change to the COLA in which they have a contractual right necessarily violates the Contract Clauses. 2012In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 858 ; Kuhn v. State, 924 P.2d 1053, 1059 (Colo.1996); Kilbourn, 971 P.2d at 287 ; see Energy Reserves Grp., 459 U.S. at 412, 416 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ; see also id. at 411 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ("In determining the extent of the impairment, we are to consider whether the industry the complaining party has entered has been regulated in the past."). €50 Plaintiffs argue. that any adverse change to the COLA in which they have a contractual right necessarily violates the Contract Clauses. | 1 | 1 |
Parsonese v. Midland National Insurancegreen2 sentences2001Although a federal contracts clause argument was not raised here, we find these cases persuasive because "[rletroactivity has been a weighty factor in many of the cases which held that legislation violated the contracts clause." Parsonese v. Midland National Insurance Co., 550 Pa. 423, 434 , 706 A.2d 814, 819 (1998). 2001Although a federal contracts clause argument was not raised here, we find these cases persuasive because "[rletroactivity has been a weighty factor in many of the cases which held that legislation violated the contracts clause." Parsonese v. Midland National Insurance Co., 550 Pa. 423, 434 , 706 A.2d 814, 819 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus
green
2 sentences2012Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 186 , 112 S.Ct. 1105 , 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992) (quoting Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 244 , 98 S.Ct. 2716 , 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978)); accord DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 858 . 2012Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 186 , 112 S.Ct. 1105 , 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992) (quoting Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 244 , 98 S.Ct. 2716 , 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978)); accord DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 858 . | 2 | 2005–2012 |
School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver v. Masters
green
2 sentences2019Id. ¶7 In School District No. 1 in the City & County of Denver v. Masters , several teachers, together with the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA), alleged that DPS had invoked SB 191 to place hundreds of teachers on unpaid leave in violation of their rights to due process of law and the contracts clause of the Colorado Constitution. 2018 CO 18 , ¶ 1, 413 P.3d 723 , 725. 2019Id. ¶7 In School District No. 1 in the City & County of Denver v. Masters , several teachers, together with the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA), alleged that DPS had invoked SB 191 to place hundreds of teachers on unpaid leave in violation of their rights to due process of law and the contracts clause of the Colorado Constitution. 2018 CO 18 , ¶ 1, 413 P.3d 723 , 725. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Johnson v. School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver
green
1 sentence2019Id. ¶7 In School District No. 1 in the City & County of Denver v. Masters , several teachers, together with the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA), alleged that DPS had invoked SB 191 to place hundreds of teachers on unpaid leave in violation of their rights to due process of law and the contracts clause of the Colorado Constitution. 2018 CO 18 , ¶ 1, 413 P.3d 723 , 725. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kilbourn v. Fire & Police Pension Ass'n
green
2 sentences2012In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 858 ; Kuhn v. State, 924 P.2d 1053, 1059 (Colo.1996); Kilbourn, 971 P.2d at 287 ; see Energy Reserves Grp., 459 U.S. at 412, 416 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ; see also id. at 411 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ("In determining the extent of the impairment, we are to consider whether the industry the complaining party has entered has been regulated in the past."). €50 Plaintiffs argue. that any adverse change to the COLA in which they have a contractual right necessarily violates the Contract Clauses. 2012In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 858 ; Kuhn v. State, 924 P.2d 1053, 1059 (Colo.1996); Kilbourn, 971 P.2d at 287 ; see Energy Reserves Grp., 459 U.S. at 412, 416 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ; see also id. at 411 , 103 S.Ct. 697 ("In determining the extent of the impairment, we are to consider whether the industry the complaining party has entered has been regulated in the past."). €50 Plaintiffs argue. that any adverse change to the COLA in which they have a contractual right necessarily violates the Contract Clauses. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
General Motors Corp. v. Romein
green
2 sentences2012Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 186 , 112 S.Ct. 1105 , 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992) (quoting Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 244 , 98 S.Ct. 2716 , 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978)); accord DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 858 . 2012Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181, 186 , 112 S.Ct. 1105 , 117 L.Ed.2d 328 (1992) (quoting Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 244 , 98 S.Ct. 2716 , 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978)); accord DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 858 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
United States v. Winstar Corp.
green
2 sentences2012Rather, the Department urged that the impossibility doctrine set forth in United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 , 116 S.Ct. 2432 , 135 L.Ed.2d 964 (1996), should be applied to determine whether the Department's breach was exeused based on the 2009 amendment. 2012Rather, the Department urged that the impossibility doctrine set forth in United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 , 116 S.Ct. 2432 , 135 L.Ed.2d 964 (1996), should be applied to determine whether the Department's breach was exeused based on the 2009 amendment. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Whirlpool Corporation v. Ritter
green
1 sentence2001The leading case on the retroactive application of a divorcee revocation statute is Whirlpool Corp. v. Ritter, 929 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir.1991). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.